Skip to content


Pazhaniandy Tarakan Vs. Murukappa Tarakan and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectProperty
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported inAIR1926Mad367; 92Ind.Cas.124; (1926)50MLJ49
AppellantPazhaniandy Tarakan
RespondentMurukappa Tarakan and ors.
Cases Referred and Srinivasa Moorthy v. Venkatavarada Iyengar
Excerpt:
trusts act (ii of 1882), section 88 - trust, acceptance, of--repudiation by trustee. - .....benefit of the trust, i do not think that any court would allow him to sue in his own capacity as being solely entitled to the property. if he does sue in such capacity he is, in effect, committing a breach, of trust. plaintiff is admittedly in possession of the trust property and can out of it recoup himself what he has. spent for the benefit of the trust. consequently i think that the lower appellate court is quite right in dismissing his suit. the second appeal is dismissed with costs.
Judgment:

Phillips, J.

1. In this ease the plaintiff and his family obtained a saswatam lease of certain property which was dedicated in trust. The plaintiff was appointed the managing trustee and in pursuance of that appointment, he gave notice to the person in possession of the property to deliver it up. The title of plaintiff's transferor was disputed and subsequently plaintiff purchased the saswatam right from the rival jenmi in his own name. He now sues for damages for trespass and an injunction. The lower Appellate Court dismissed his suit on the ground that under Section 8 of the Trusts Act, plaintiff was bound to hold the property on behalf of the trust and could not, therefore, bring a suit in his personal capacity in derogation of the trust.

2. The first argument put forward in appeal is that inasmuch as the plaintiff did not obtain actual physical possession of the property, Section 88 does not apply. In Section 88 there is no recital as to the possession of the property and in the cases relied on by the appellant Muniswami Chetty v. Maruthammat 7 Ind. Cas. 170 : 20 M.L.J. 687 and Srinivasa Moorthy v. Venkatavarada Iyengar 2 Ind. Cas. 447 : 21 M.L.J. 669 : 38 I.A. 129 (P.C.), there is really nothing to support this contention. In fact in Munisivami Cheteyy. Maruthammal (1910) M.W.N. 233 : 8 M.L.T. 124 : 34 M. 211 it was held that 'If an executor accepts the office and acts as executor 'with full knowledge of all the circumstances bearing on his right,'...he is estopped from subsequently repudiating the Will.' Here the plaintiff accepted the trust and acted upon it and consequently he is now estopped from disputing the trust.

3. The next point put forward is that the plaintiff is entitled to be re-imbursed out of the trust the money which he paid out of his own pocket and that, therefore, until that is done the property is his own. This is, no doubt, true and would be applicable in a case where the beneficiaries sought to take the possession out of the plaintiff's hands, but in the present case this is not even a suit against the beneficiaries but a suit against a co-trustee and when Section 88 lays down that the plaintiff must hold this property for the benefit of the trust, I do not think that any Court would allow him to sue in his own capacity as being solely entitled to the property. If he does sue in such capacity he is, in effect, committing a breach, of trust. Plaintiff is admittedly in possession of the trust property and can out of it recoup himself what he has. spent for the benefit of the trust. Consequently I think that the lower Appellate Court is quite right in dismissing his suit. The second appeal is dismissed with costs.


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