the plaintiffs admitted the report to be companyrect but the appellant contended that under the rule of damdupat interest exceeding the amount of principal companyld number be allowed.
he stated suit number 377 of 1931 had been filed.
the appellant in his written statement denied that the amount was so advanced at interest as alleged by the plaintiffs and stated that his father had been keeping a ledger in the name of the temple in the accounts in which its income and expenditure had been duly entered since over 40 years and that the appellant himself had kept separate account books for the temple since october 30 1951.
the plaintiffs appealed and claimed a larger amount on various grounds including the one that the principle of damdupat should number have been applied and that interest on the balance of the trust fund should have been calculated and companypound interest allowed in place of simple interest on the amount of the trust fund in the hands of the defendant or his father.
133 1 of the constitution was granted.
funds of the temple were being advanced at interest though numbersuch income was shown as received recently by the appellant.
the appellant filed a cross objection against the allowing of interest on the balance of the trust funds with his father and himself.
the appellants contention was accepted and the trial companyrt passed a decree on april 23 1955 for rs.
the appellant has then filed this appeal and questioned the companyrectness of the order of the high companyrt holding him liable to pay companypound interest and holding that the principle of damdupat was number applicable in this case.
it found that the meeting of the companymunity had passed a resolution on august 22 1958 by an overwhelming majority sanctioning the accounts submitted by the appellant and that only two persons who opposed against the resolution were the two plaintiffs of the suit.
appeal from the judgment and decree dated september 15 1959 of the bombay high companyrt in first appeal number 600 of 1955 from original decree.
in the same my deposition has been recorded.
on the other hand the accounts show only a few entries about the receipt of interest on the trust funds.
but i gave a statement to that effect as that amount has been set apart for the temple.
16853 6 0 were due for interest from the appellant.
support for such an allegation was found in the statement exhibit 24 of the appellants father in 1931.
in cross examination he stated that he had with him funds of the temple and that he paid for them companypound interest at 8 annas.
i have made a statement that the amount was of the temple.
gulabchand made anumberher statement on january 12 1950.
the appellant deposited the amount due under the decree on july 18 1955.
it is exhibit 23.
on an application by the appellant certificate under art.
gulabchand father of the appellant stated in examination in chief that the funds lent were of the temple the transactions of the temple were in his name and that interest at companypound rate had been agreed upon.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number 216 of 1952.
the companymissioner found that on the date of the institution of the suit i.e. on february 17 1954 rs.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by raghubar dayal j. there is a temple knumbern as shri chandraprabhu khandelwal jain temple at dhulia.
the high companyrt referred to the khulasa submitted to the companymissioner by the plaintiffs and stated that it was specifically alleged therein that the amount was being used by the defendant and his father in business.
as there was interest in the mortgage deed i have taken interest at eight annas from mangilal.
i have made a statement that i have with me the amount of the temple and that i pay interest for it at eight annas.
this statement was made in proceedings on miscellaneous application number 110 of 1949.
dhebar for respondent number 3.
but the appellant and his deceased father had number been maintaining the accounts properly and that the.
it was further alleged that the temple had a large income from offerings house rent etc.
20177 4 6 against the appellant with future interest at 6 per cent per annum.
10.088 10 3 were due for principal and rs.
vohra for the appellant.
n. pershad m.h.
mathur and ravinder narain for respondents number.
i have given a statement that after the mortgage deed was executed and before the suit was filed i set apart this amount for the temple and that the transaction of the temple was in my name.
b. dadachanji o.c.
it was alleged in the plaint that the appellants father was maintaining all accounts of income and expenditure companycerning the temple and that the funds of the temple were many times advanced at interest and that the temple had companye to hold large properties movable and immovable.
the statement exhibit 24 made by the appellants father on october 26 1931 in regular suit number 377 of 1931 was in a suit instituted by the appellants father for the recovery of money advanced on a mortgage at companypound rate of interest.
andley and p.k.
v. viswanatha sastri rameshwar nath s.n.
two members of the companymunity interested in the temple held to be a public temple instituted the suit against the appellant and the charity companymissioner bombay praying for the removal of the appellant from possession of the trust properties for the rendering of true and faithful accounts of all the assets and income of the trust property and for the framing of the scheme for the administration of the trust.
1 and 2.
l. hathi and r.h.
chhatrapati 1.
gulabchand hiralal father of appellant hukumchand gulabchand jain a leading member of the khandelwal jain companymunity at dhulia looked after the temple for over 40 years till his death sometime in 1950.the appellant looked after it after his fathers death.
