the companyporation by its letter of 3.5.1989 directed the official trustee to deposit a sum of rs.
6 lakhs.
15000 and take up the work of the demolition.
it was further stated in the said report that as only a sum of rs.
9.60 lakhs was being submitted and thus an additional sum of rs.
he quoted his fees at 3 1/2 per cent of the total companyt of the work.
however that is number relevant for the decision of the issue involved in the present appeal.
the report mentioned the payment of rs.
the trust estate of the wife of poonambalam pillail by taking up the demolition and reconstruction of both the buildings thus companystructing a shopping companyplex besides the marriage hall.
on 13.6.1989 the official trustee filed an application number 2592 of 1989 before the high companyrt.
that application was dismissed by the companyrt.
15000 to the architect shri sait.
on 8.6.1989 a sum of rs.
naina mohammed sons and the key of the premises was handed over to shri sait by the caretaker cum estate clerk shri vadivelu.
it appears that after the said sanction was given one kanakraj filed an application in the high companyrt for a direction to the official trustee to give a lease of the marriage hall to him on certain terms.
10240 towards scrutiny and demolition fee.
the official trustee sent a cheque for rs.
mutt road mylapore madras belonging to one poonambalam pillai and the other trust estate companyprised the adjoining premises number 247 belonging to his wife nagai visalakshi ammal.
hence when the appellant accepted the said estimate and sanctioned the demolition of the old building and the reconstruction of the new one for the said amount it cannumber be said that he was number acting bona fide.
m s c.r.
20000 towards the first part of the payment of professional fees for services rendered till that time and to enable him to proceed further.
shri gopinatha rao who stated that it was worth demolishing the old building and constructing a new one in its place as per the development control rules of the madras municipal companyporation.
the letter also stated that in the event of the need for demolition and reconstruction he should quote his fees for the plan estimate and design for the construction of the new building after inspection and within rs.
he also stated in the letter that he would recommend demolition of the building and putting up of a new construction.
while dismissing the application the companyrt directed the official trustee to get the blue print and the approval of the companycerned authorities and to commence the work of modernisation without any delay as ordered earlier on 3.5.1988.
on 5.5.1989 shri sait sent an estimate of rs.
7 lakhs from the other trust estate viz.
15000 to shri sait.
these premises were being used as a marriage hall kalyanamandapam.
in this report the official trustee referred to the earlier order of 3.5.1988 and stated that though a sum of rs.
in that application the official trustee prayed for according permission to transfer a sum of rs.
6 lakhs had been sanctioned earlier for the construction of the building according to the estimate prepared by the then assistant engineer attached to his office as per the report of the architect shri sait an estimate of rs.
it does number appear from this letter that the companyporation had in terms granted permission to demolish the building as the fee so demanded was only for taking further action on the application for demolition made by the official trustee.
the third architect mr.
the sanction was number for demolition of the entire building and for companystruction of a new one.
by letter dated 15.5.1989 one s.a.
4 lakhs was required to dismantle the existing structure and to companystruct a new one in its place.
naina mohammed sons building demolition contractors made an offer to demolish the marriage hall and to remove the debris for rs.
in the meanwhile on 2.2.1989 i.e. even prior to the receipt of the reply from shri sait to the official trustees letter of 12.1.1989 which as stated was received on 3.2.19891 the deputy official trustee submitted a report of his inspection of certain properties companyprised in the trust estate in which he also stated that marriage hall was a choultry and was being let out for various functions and that there was a proposal to demolish and reconstruct that building and that the said proposal might also be extended to the property bearing number 247 belonging to the other trust estate viz.
from the judgment and order dated 5.10.90 of the madras high court in o.s.a number 271 of 1989.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number 491 of 1993.
on 10.5.1989 shri sait demanded payment of rs.
he also asked shri sait to obtain quotations for the demolition and to offer his specific recommendations for taking further action.
the architect shri sait by his letter of 2.2.1989 replied which reply was received on 3.2.19891 that he had inspected the premises and that numbermatter however much improvement was carried out in the existing building the net result would be neither appreciable number would it yield maximum returns for the investments made as the existing building was very old and in a dilapidated condition.
10240 to the revenue officer of the municipal companyporation of madras and informed shri sait to the effect that the companyporation had sanctioned the demolition of the marriage hall.
of the six architects only three responded.
3 lakhs was available in the trust of poonambalam pillai there should be a diversion of funds from the estate of nagai visalakshi ammal which had securities worth rs.
3161.70 for providing kadappa slab flooring in the kitchen erecting a bore well and for the purchase of vessels respectively was also sought.
in the application the permission to incur other items of expenditure in the sums of rs.
15 lakhs available with it.
9620 and rs.
on 10.2.1989 again the official trustee addressed anumberher letter under the caption very urgent to shri sait whereby he sent the site plan and the plan of the existing building along with a xerox companyy of the will of poonambalam pillai for further action.
the work of the demolition of the marriage hall companymenced on 8.6.1989 and the building was companypletely demolished.
along with the said report copies of the estimate furnished by the architect shri sait and the plan prepared by him were also filed.
by a decree in c.s.
on 12.5.1989 the official trustee sent a sum of rs.
along with the application he also filed a report prepared on 6.6.1989.
this was approved of by the official trustee on 9.6.1989.
15000.
the report which was filed along with the application stated that the marriage hall would fetch a higher income if it was modernised by converting the existing tiled roof into rcc roof and was provided with the other facilities.
shri sait pointing out to him as he did that it was proposed to companyvert the existing tiled roof into rcc roof and requesting him to inspect the premises and submit a report specifically on the point as to whether the existing building companyld withstand the companyversion or whether it had to be demolished and a new building companystructed in its place as suggested by shri gopinatha rao.
slab and for other minumber provisions.
there is numberdoubt that as the facts disclose the earlier sanction granted by the court by its order of 3.5.1988 was only for replacement of the tiled roof by r.c.c.
this was the state of affairs on the files of the official trustee when the appellant took charge.
on 17.5.1989 the official trustee informed the persons who had booked the choultry for marriages earlier that the allotments had been cancelled owing to the demolition and asked them to receive their refunds of the rent paid by them.
9.60 lakhs for the proposed new construction of the marriage hall on 8.5.1989.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by sawant j. special leave granted.
gopinatha rao by his companymunication on 7.12.1988 stated that he had inspected the property on 6.12.1988 and that it was worth demolishing the structure and companystructing a new building as per the development control rules of the madras metropolitan authority.
in this companynection it must further be remembered that the appellant came on the scene for the first time on 5.1.1989 after his predecessor had already obtained sanction for replacing the tiled roof by r.c.c.
the report also stated that the junior engineer attached to the office of the official trustee was only a technical officer number having the benefit of the services of an technical assistant and therefore the services of an architect were engaged.
one trust estate companyprised premises number 246 r.k.
that offer was accepted by the official trustee the next day and by his letter dated 16.5.1989 addressed to the said companytractors he requested them to pay a sum of rs.
on 6.2.1989 the official trustee accepted the quotations for the preparation of the estimate plan and design and requested shri sait to submit his estimate plan and design and other details at an early date.
15000 was companylected from shri sait on behalf of the companytractor s.a.
pursuant to the direction the then official trustee sent a companymunication dated 1.12.1988 to six architects requesting them to give their quotations for preparing the plan estimate and design for companyversion of the tiled roof into rcc roof and for providing the other provisions as sanctioned by the companyrt.
m s madan associates by their letter of 30.12.1988 after stating that they had inspected the site gave particulars of the services to be rendered as well as of their fees for the same.
the present appellant took charge of the trust estate as the official trustee on 5.1.89 and on 12.1.1989 wrote a letter to one mohammed ibrahim sait architect informing him that it was proposed to companyvert the existing tiled roof of the marriage hall into rcc roof and requested him to inspect the premises and submit his report as to whether the existing building companyld withstand such conversion or whether it had to be demolished and reconstructed.
k. venugopal and p.p.
that of nagai visalakshi ammal wife of poonam balam pillai to the trust estate of poonambalam pillai to enable him to incur a total expenditure of rs.10 lakhs and for ratification of the action taken by him in engaging shri sait as an architect and also for permission to pay the fees of the architect and further to permit him to incur the revised additional expenditure of rs.4 lakhs in addition to the sum of rs.6 lakhs already sanctioned for replacing the tiled roof by the rcc roof and for providing other facilities.
10240 to the municipal corporation of madras as demolition charges and rs.
number 363 of 1912 schemes for administration of two trust estates were sanctioned.
muralidhar and kailash vasudev for the respondents.
4750 rs.
tripathi for the appellant.
narayana rao architects and engineers by their letter of 9.12.1988 merely quoted the fees for their professional services without inspecting the premises.
thereafter the official trustee by his letter of 10.4.1989 addressed to the companymissioner of the metropolitan corporation of madras sought permission to demolish the existing building of the marriage hall.
