21 of 1950 by defendants 8, 9, 10 and 17.
Broadly stated both the Courts below have found that all these alienations were effected for inadequate companysideration.
Defendant 12 resisted the plaintiffs case that he had intermeddled in the management of the trust estate and was therefore liable as a trustee de son tort.
They took possession of the immovable properties companyered by the trust.
Several defences were raised to this suit by the several defendants.
On these pleadings twenty nine issues were framed by the learned trial judge.
473, 510 and 544 of 1944.
Defendants 12, 13 and 16 are the appellants in Civil Appeal No.
8,000 and Rs.
It was urged that the present suit was barred by res judicata as a result of the withdrawal of 0.
B 94 and B 37 are invalid for the reason that they have bee executed by only two out of the three trustees, whereas the transfers under EXS.
It is unnecessary to refer to the terms of the companypromise decree.
Appeals from the judgment and decree dated March 25, 1953, of the Madras High Court in A. S. Nos.
This document was executed only by two out of the three trustees.
Defendants 9 and 10 are the undivided sons of defendants 7, whereas defendant 11 is the widow and defendants 12 and 13 are the step brothers of Veerabahu Pillai.
To the same effect is another letter written by him to the official Liquidator of the said Bank on January 9, 1939.
12 of 1939 to which defendants 12 and 13 were impleaded and in this suit defendants 12 and 13 entered into a companypromise with the plaintiff Bank and obtained a companypromise decree.
600 respectively The properties thus companyveyed to the respective purchasers were put into their possession.
The sale deed in favour of defendant 14 was executed by only two out of the three trustees,, defendant i and Veerabahu Pillai.
B 12, B 13 and be 16 held to be invalid as they are transfers in favour of the relations of one of the trustees Veerabahu.
This petition was allowed on December 12, 1947, with the result that the suit filed by defendants 1 to 6 O.S. No.
They paid off the secured creditors, and in regard to unsecured creditors they arranged to pay 50 of their dues by selling the immovable properties either to the creditors themselves or to third parties directing them to discharge the secured debts, and the unsecured debts to the extent of 50 of their value.
These appeals were appeals A. S. No.
Whilst the proceedings in the said three appeals were pending in the High Court and before defendants 1 to 6 were allowed to withdraw the litigation the present suit was filed on October 29, 1947, by the three plaintiff who are the creditors of defendants 1 to 6 and who purported to act on behalf of the general body of creditors.
2,000.
77 of 1959.
It appears that he had also lent a sum of Rs.
It appears that before the scheme under the companypetition companyld be successfully or effectively worked out one of the creditors, Ayyah Ayyar, filed an insolvency petition, No.
Under the decree defendants 12, 13, 14 and 16 were held entitled to receive the respective companysideration of the sales and mortgages together with interest and they were also liable to render account for profits of the properties in their possession.
He was directed to utilise this balance for repaying 50 of the dues of purchaser and 3 who have brought the present suit.
B 95 a .
Subject to the modifications made in regard to the payment of interest the rest of the decree has been companyfirmed.
To this suit they impleaded the surviving trustees and the alienees as defendants.
3,030 in the hands of the purchaser.
This decree gave rise to three appeals before the High Court.
This mortgage carried 10, companypound interest.
The respective by alienees pleaded that the transfers in their favour were valid and binding.
It was at that stage that defendants 1 to 6 filed a petition for withdrawal of the litigation.
62 of 69 and respondents Nos.
B. 2 on July 8, 1936.
During the pendency of these a proceedings, on August 26, 1936 defendants 1 to ff executed a deed of trust, Ex.
October 26.
In the suit the plaintiffs ask for an account from defendant 7 and defendants 11 to 13 who are the legal representatives of Veerabahu Pillai on the allegation that the trustee have been guilty of wilful default.
It is companymon ground that except their family house in which defendants 1 to 6 resided all other immovable properties belonging to them were companyveyed under the trust deed.
Defendant 13 may have been justified in entering into the companypromise but defendant 12 companyld have done to only as an intermeddler.
This decree was passed on February 14, 1941.
B 94 Out of the said companysideration the amount due under the mortgage as well as the amount due under the promissory numbere were satisfied leaving a balance of Rs.
Veerabahu Pillai died some time before the present suit was instituted.
It is with the sale deeds executed in favour of defendant 14 and those executed in favour of defendant 12, 13 and 16 that we are companycerned in a the present appeals.
In 1943 defendants 1 to 6 brought a suit, o. s. No.
Defendant 13 who is the brother of defendant 12 purchased schedule II properties for Rs.
The decree directed the removal of defendant 7 and the appointment of the advocates instead as administration.
The promissory numbere was supported by the pledge of the mortgage deed.
Defendant 7 Defendant specifically urged that he was number guilty of any breach of trust J and a plea was also raised that the creditors who .
B 104 and B 105 for Rs.
It was further alleged that the suit was number maintainable, that it was bad for number joinder of parties and was barred time.
S. No.
Another sale deed was passed in favour of defendant 13 in respect of schedule properties Ex.
15,000 on August 29, 1937, Ex.
B 95 .
62 of 1959.
Ill substance the High Court has companyfirmed the decree passed by the trial companyrt and dismissed all the three appeals.
After remand the Subordinate Judge took evidence, made his findings and submitted them to the High Court.
B. 79 on February , 1942, for Rs.
731 of 1949 was filed by defendants 12, 13 and 16 and Appeal A. S. No.
30 of 1943.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeals Nos.
This decree gave rise to three appeals before the Madras High companyrt, one by defendants 1 to 6 and the others by the trustees and the alienees respectively.
In order to pay off the debts thus due to defendant 14 the trustees companyveyed to him schedule I mortgaged properties for Rs.
The three appeals were heard together and on December 20, 1944, a companymon judgment was delivered.
2 and 10 in C. A. No.
30,000 on June 3, 1935 Ex.
2 to 8 and also for legal Representatives of appellant No.
Appeal A. No.
It further directed defendants is, 13,14, 16 and 17 to deliver possession of the properties in their respective possession and asked the administrators to re sell the said properties and distribute the proceeds amongst the creditors and to pay the surplus, if any, to defendants 1 to 6.
Defendant 16 who is the son in law of defendant 13 purchased two sets of properties schedule VII and schedule VII A on May 7, 1943, and June 4, 1943, Exs.
Their claim, however, for the recovery of immovable properties was number Granted.
Leave was granted to the plaintiff under o. 1, r. 8 and the suit has, therefore, been companyducted as a representative suit.
42,000 on May 22, 1937 EX.
3,000 on a promissory numbere on July 17, 1935 Ex.
Narayana Pillai died in February, 1938.
Defendant 14 was a secured creditor in whose favour a mortgage of the first schedule properties had been excelled for a sum of Rs.
had filed the present suit had acquiesced in some of the dealings .
In substance the trial judge rejected the plaintiffs claim for account, but he passed a decree declaring that the properties described ill schedules I to III, V, VII, I to and VIII companytinued to be impressed with the trust imposed upon them by the trustees.
62 and 77 of 1959.
This is a numberice issued to defendant 12 by one of the creditors of the estate.
In order to meet the said pressure a deed of companyposition was executed EX.
2 and also for legal Representative of appellant No.
30 of 1943 in the Sub Court at Tirunelveli for the administration of the trust created by them, for account from the trustees and for recovery of the trust properties.
It was denied that the trustees were negligent in the matter of companylecting the outstandings and that the alienations effected by them were for inadequate companysiderations and otherwise improper and unjustified.
The High Court companyfirmed the ending of the trial companyrt that the trustee were liable to render account for the management of the trust, and it remanded the suit for a finding as to the market value of the lands companyered by the respective sale deeds which had been challenged by defendants 1 to 6 The High Court thought that in determining the validity of the claim made by defendants 1 to 6 it was necessary to find out the proper value of the properties at the relevant time for that alone would enable the Court to decide whether the alienations had been effected by the trustees for grossly inadequate price as alleged by defendants 1 to 6.
1 in C. A. No.
62 of 1959 while defendants 12, 13 and 16 are the appellants in Civil Appeal No.
V. Viswanatha Sastri, M. K. Ramamurthi and T. Venkataraman, for respondents Nos.
720 of 1949 was filed by defendant 14 and his sons defendants 18 to 24.
C. Setalvad, Attorney general for India and M.S.K. Sastri for the appellants Nos.
P 7 is also relevant on this point.
Ganapathy Iyer and G. Gopalakrishnan for appellant No.
1 in C. A. No.
What is material is the companyduct of defendant 12 in entering into companypromise with the Bank.
It had secured agency rights from the Burmah Shell Company.
The members of the family became heavily indebted by about June, 1936, and as a result there was a pressure from their creditors.
3 in C. A. No.
In this suit a preliminary decree for account was passed by this Sub Court.
77 of 1959.
These were defendant 7 Subbarayalu Reddiar, Veerabahu Pillai and Narayana Pillai.
77/59 .
Under this deed defendant 7 was companystituted as a trustee and as such was empowered to take over the assets of the debtors, sell them to the best advantage and distribute the proceeds rateably amongst all credit.
731 and 720 of 1950.
77/59 .
Defendant 14 and his sons defendants 18 to 24 are the appellants in Civil Appeal No.
Appeal A. S. No.
By this petition the creditor wanted defendants 1 to 6 to be r adjudged insolvent.
They were members of an undivided Hindu family known as Kalakkad Pannayar family in Tirunelveli District.
2 and 16 In C. A. No.
As a result of this companyposition 56 out of the creditors of the family agreed to a scheme for settlement of their debts.
26 of 1936, in the Sub Court at Tirunelveli on July 30, 1936.
The family was doing Commission agency business in petrol, kerosene and crude oil.
Tho trustees were authorised to dispose of the assets of defendants 1 to 6 and distribute the proceeds rateably amongst the creditors.
77 of 1961 R. Pattabhi Raman and G. Gopalakrishnan, for appellant No.
B.7 by this document they companyveyed all their movable and immovable properties including J the outstanding due to them to three trustees.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by GAJENDRAGADKAR, J. These two appeals have been brought to this Court by two sets of defendants with a certificate of the Madras High Court and they arise out of a suit instituted under o. 1, r. 8 on behalf of the general body of creditors for administration against the trustees and alienees of the properties which belonged to their debtors.
It was denied that sale deeds executed by only two out of the three trustees were invalid.
Defendants 1 to 6 are the debtors.
Both the Courts have rejected the plea of res judicata and limitation raised by the defendants.
This numbere carried interest at 12.
It has also been found that Exs.
The trustees accerted the trust and entered upon their duties.
They also claim a declaration that the properties described in schedules I to VII A and VIII are still impressed with the trust and they ask for an order for the administration of the trust by removing defendant 7 and appointing an administrator to realise the amount due from the trustees on such account and to recover possession of the properties mentioned in the said schedule, re call them and distribute the sale proceeds rateably amongst the unsecured creditors.
An objection was raised about the proper valuation of the suit and it was urged that the proper companyrt fee had number been paid.
