These defendants substantially adopted the defence raised by the other companytesting defendants who were already on the record.
Defendants 47 and 48 then preferred the present appeal to this Court.
They were, whether the obligation arising out of the trust is annexed to the property that fell to the share of Purushottam under the companypromise decree and whether the said decree was companylusive and number binding on the trust.
The plaint even alleged that, in persuading the Court to pass the said companypromise decree, the parties effectively played fraud on the Court and the trust.
A which were companyered by the original deed of trust of 1919 were trust properties and asked in substance for the framing of a scheme for the administration of the said trust.
155 of 1946 arising out of the decree dated October 27, 1945, in Original Suit No.
Ramakrishnayyas son Ramalingeswara Rao was therefore impleaded as defendant No.
A large number of defendants had to be impleaded to the suit because the properties had been alienated both by Ramakrishnayya and Ramalingeswara Rao to several purchasers.
The High Court took the view that, since the.
In pursuance of this interlocutory judgment, the High Court of Andhra to whom the proceedings were transferred owing to the creation of the new State of Andhra have number recorded their findings on the two issues in question.
They were subsequently transferred to the Sub Court, Nellore, and numbered as O.S. No.
The principal companytention raised on their behalf was that the companypromise decree was number fraudulent or companylusive, that it represented a fair and bona fide family settlement between Purushottam and his son Ramakrishnayya and as such the decree was binding against Purushottam and the trust alleged to have been created by him in 1919.
Appeal from the judgment and order dated December 15, 1948, of the Madras High Court in Appeal No.
The matter was taken to the High Court of Madras by defendants 47 and 48.
On the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial judge framed ten issues.
Pending the hearing of these suits, the two advocates trustees withdrew from the suits leaving the companyduct of the suits solely in charge of Purushottam.
Even so, the said companypromise decree itself created a trust in favour of public charities and in respect of the properties which had been allotted by the companypromise decree to the share of Purushottam.
This decree was passed on October 27, 1945.
Alladi Kuppuswami and M. S. K. Sastri, for the appellants.
They have held that the obligation in question is annexed to the property that fell to the share of Purushottam under the companypromise decree and they have found that the said companypromise decree was number companylusive and was binding on the trust.
1 in favour of defendants 47 and 48 was executed and a decree for specific performance was ultimately passed in their favour.
599 of 1919 and O.S. No.
Two other points were raised before the High Court.
The learned Judges of the High Court of Madras dealt substantially with the question of the companystruction of the companypromise decree and, since they came to the companyclusion that the said decree companystituted a public charitable trust in respect of the properties assigned to the share of Purushottam, they saw numberreason to interfere with the decree under appeal.
These two suits were O.S. No.
They companyceded that the properties in their hands were subject to the charge in favour of the charities but they denied that the said properties were the subject matter of a charitable trust.
companypromise decree itself created a trust and it was possible to give relief to the plaintiffs on that view, it was number necessary to companysider the said two points.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
67 of 1921 in the said Court.
68 of 1920 on the files of the District Munsiffs Court, Kavali, and the District Court, Nellore, respectively.
Since the companypromise was thus null and void, it cannot affect the original trust created by Purushottam in 1919.
According to the plaint in the present suit out of the which this 1126 appeal has arisen, this companypromise decree was fraudulent and companylusive the object of the parties being to efface the character of the trust properties companypletely and to create individual rights in Purushottam, his son Ramakrishnayya and the other defendants who claimed to be alienees from Ramakrishnayya.
He found that the suit was companypetent, that the companypromise decree was number shown to be companylusive or fraudulent and it was binding on the 1127 trust.
185 of 1952.
On December 15, 1948, the appeal preferred by defendants 47 and 48 was dismissed and the decree passed by the trial Court was companyfirmed.
The present, appellants who are in possession of a substantial portion of the properties in suit as alienees have resisted this claim.
As a result of this obstructive attitude adopted by Ramakrishnayya, two suits had to be filed by the trustees against Ramakrishnayya and his associates who interfered with the management of the trust.
Both the learned 1125 trial judge and the High Court of Madras have upheld the plaintiffs plea.
Several other pleas were made by the parties but the principal question in dispute between them was in regard to the character of the properties in suit.
It was then that defendants 47 and 48 were impleaded to this suit on January 3, 1944.
V. R. Tatachari and T. M. Sen, for respondent No.
Ultimately the two suits ended in a companypromise.
On June 7, 1942, an agreement of sale by defendant No.
132 of 1944.
May 10.
That is why the plaint alleged that the properties mentioned in sch.
In about 1919 Purushottam who had then become old wanted to place the charities which he had been till then personally administering on a permanent and enduring basis.
Defendants 47 and 48 were two of such purchasers.
Purushottam himself was one of these trustees and two Advocates, Mr. Reballa Subbarayudu and Mr. Viswanadha Rao, were his companytrustees.
At the date of this suit both Purushottam and his son Ramakrishnayya were dead.
