21,500/ on April 19, 1959, or whether he intended to purchase it for himself and then decided to pass it on to the trust, for defendants have led their evidence to show that the property was allowed to be sold for Rs.
Decree dated 20 2 1969 of the Madras High Court in Appeal No.
48A, and it was settled by a companypromise under which a preliminary decree dated September 12, 1956 was drawn up for the sale of the properties amongst the members of the family.
There was a suit for partition of the family properties including house No.
There is some companytroversy on the question whether defendant No.
The suit was decreed by the Subordinate Judge of Madurai on September 10, 1962.
21,500/ , which was less than its market value, as it was meant for use by the trust and that defendant No.
1 on July 21, 1960, offering to purchase it for Rs.
48A was shown as the property of the trust.
25,000/ under sale deed Ex.
1 became the managing trustee of the trust.
1 however sold that property soon after, to his son defendant No.
1 was number acting honestly when he palmed of the property to his son soon after by the aforesaid sale deed Ex.
1 made an outright purchase of the suit property for and on behalf of the trust for Rs.
The High Court of Madras however allowed the appeal against that judgment and decree and dismissed the suit with companyts of both the companyrts holding that Rs.
A final decree was drawn up on November 29, 1959 in which house No.
21,500/ for the aforesaid trust on April 19, 1959.
Sankaranarayana died and defendant No.
35,000/ .
Defendant No.
2 on July 14, 1960, for Rs.
By that document Sankaranarayana Iyer became the first trustee for life, and it was provided that after him the senior most member would be the trustee, by turns.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
Defendant No.
1179 Jayaram for Respondents 2 5.
B. 13 dated July 14, 1960.
Vepa P. Sarathy and Mrs. S. Gopalakrishnan for Respondent No.
Appeal from the Judgment and.
1 purchased the suit property for Rs.
Defendant No.
Chithambaram Chettiar W. 2 , who was a tenant of that property from 1949 onwards, came to know of the intended sale and sent a registered numberice to defendant No.
1 acted with perfect bona fides and numberulterior motive can be attributed to him.
The plaintiffs thereupon filed the present suit on September 15, 1960, challenging that sale and asking for its restoration to the trust.
B. 13.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SHINGHAL, J. This appeal by a certificate of the Madras High Court is directed against its judgment and decree dated February 20, 1969.
1 however went ahead with the sale of the property to his son and registered the sale deed on July 22, 1960.
104 of 1963.
1584 of 1969.
6 companystituted an Annadanam Trust and he and his sons executed a registered deed of settlement for that purpose on June 3, 1908.
L. Sanghi and Vineet Kumar for the Appellants.
25,000/ was quite adequate and fair price for the suit property and that defendant No.
One Manikka Sankaranarayana Iyer, father of defendants 1 and 3 and grandfather of plaintiffs 1 to 5 and defendants 2, 4 and 5 and father in law of plaintiff No.
The defendants resisted the claim in the suit on the ground that the sale price was fair and adequate and that the sale had to be made because of the disputes which had arisen between the second defendant as the owner of the adjacent house and the trust in regard to the easementary rights of drainage, light and air etc.
