Skip to content


Samaram Singarachariar Vs. Krishna Swami Iyengar and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectTrusts and Societies
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in4Ind.Cas.874
AppellantSamaram Singarachariar
RespondentKrishna Swami Iyengar and ors.
Excerpt:
religious endowment act (xx of 1863), sections 13, 14 and 18 - whether a trustee can sue a co-trustee for breach of trust without sanction under section 18--how far action of the majority of trustees binds the minority--temple committee, powers of control of, over trustees. - - 1. though the decision of the majority of the trustees of a public trust binds the minority in matters connected with the management of the trust property, it does not bind them in regard to matters which are ultra vires and beyond the proper sphere of the trust, as the acts complained of in this suit are alleged to be (lewin on trusts 10th edition, p......in matters connected with the management of the trust property, it does not bind them in regard to matters which are ultra vires and beyond the proper sphere of the trust, as the acts complained of in this suit are alleged to be (lewin on trusts 10th edition, p. 279, and the cases there quoted).2. we concur in the judgment of subrahmanya aiyar j., vide also the judgment of this court in s.a. no. 690 of 1901.3. we reverse the decree of davies, j., and of the lower appellate court on the preliminary point that the suit is not, maintainable by reason of want of sanction under act xx of 1863, and we remand the suit to the lower appellate court for disposal according to law.4. costs in this court will be costs in the cause.
Judgment:

1. Though the decision of the majority of the trustees of a public trust binds the minority in matters connected with the management of the trust property, it does not bind them in regard to matters which are ultra vires and beyond the proper sphere of the trust, as the acts complained of in this suit are alleged to be (Lewin on Trusts 10th Edition, p. 279, and the cases there quoted).

2. We concur in the judgment of Subrahmanya Aiyar J., vide also the judgment of this Court in S.A. No. 690 of 1901.

3. We reverse the decree of Davies, J., and of the lower appellate Court on the preliminary point that the suit is not, maintainable by reason of want of sanction under Act XX of 1863, and we remand the suit to the lower appellate Court for disposal according to law.

4. Costs in this Court will be costs in the cause.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //