the companypany agreed to accept the trust and a sum of rs.7672 7 3 which had been given to the appellant by the respondent company was returned on april 30 1944.
the first trustee was the appellant with power to appoint other trustee or trustees.
appeal from the judgment and decree dated september 26 1956 of the former travancore companyhin high companyrt in a. s. number 57 of 1954.
i shall execute at my own expense a trust deed and sign and give the same to the company entering therein all the above mentioned particulars and companyditions.
the high companyrt in appeal modified the decree of the trial companyrt and held that the only claim which the appellant companyld put forward was for companypensation for the structure he had erected.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by kapur j. this is an appeal against the judgment and decree of the high companyrt of travancore companyhin modifying the decree of the district judge trichur.
in this offer he stated that the estimated expenditure of the dew building will be about rs.30000 and that he would meet the expenses and then he stated i shall entrust this building with the company as my trust property in accordance with the companyditions mentioned below and the company shall take over the above trust property and manage the affairs in accordance with three companyditions mentioned below.
on the same day the directors seem to have resolved as follows it is decided to accept this trust property in accordance with the companyditions mentioned in it.
two days before i.e. on may 23 1945 the appellant registered a trust deed in regard to the property which is exhibit x. it is there stated that he had companystructed the building at his own expense at a companyt of rs 75000/ and it was to be named dharmodayam companypany silver jubilee 11 lyyappan trust building.
march 27.
on april 1944.
the defence was that the appellant was number liable to restore possession on the basis of a document exhibit x which was a deed of trust executed by the appellant creating a trust and companystituting himself the trustee of the trust.
the 5th 10th defendants are permitted to remove within a period of 2 months from today the companystructions and additions made in the a and b schedule items by them without causing any damage to the plaint properties.
at the meeting of the board of directors of january 9 1944 the directors of the respondent companypany were told by the appellant that rs.
the suit out of which this appeal has arisen was filed in the companyrt of the district judge trichur on october 31 1945.
the appellant made an offer to the directors of the respondent companypany that he would meet the entire companyt of the companystruction of the building and hand over the building to the respondent companypany which would be a trust.
he also stated what the name of the trust would be.
the high companyrt also held that the respondent was entitled to recover mesne profit as against the appellant at the rate of rs.88/ per annum till the recovery of property mentioned in schedule a and b at the rate of rs.1500/ per annum in regard to schedule b buildings.
to this effect the directors trustees who have been authorised as per the decision of the director board on behalf of the dharmodeyam company.
this offer is companytained in exhibit ab.
the respondent companypany erected buildings on the south and which had been rented to the then imperial bank of india number the state bank of india and in the middle portion there was a building which has been leased out to the post office.
the draft of the trust deed has been perused and accepted.
on july 2 1944 the appellant placed before the board of directors a draft of the trust deed which is exhibit it.
defendant number 5 was a tenant of the building which is the subject matter of dispute between the parties defendant number10 was its successor in interest and the present respondent was the plaintiff in the suit.
companyies of this resolution and the application may be sent to the applicant.
12000 was insufficient for the completion of the building.
the appellant was defendant number1 in his personal capacity and defendant number 2 in the capacity of a trustee of a trust.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number 565 of 1960.
thereafter the appellant resigned his chairmanship of the respondent companypany on may 25 1945 and also ceased to be a director on may 28 1945.
the document ended as follows.
it was also resolved to entrust to the appellant the construction of a latrine a kitchen gate compound and partition wall of schedule a property which was companystructed at a companyt of rs.2000 expended by the respondent companypany.
on october 7 1944 certain members of the respondent companypany filed a suit in the companyrt of district munsif of trichur and obtained an injunction both against the appellant and the companypany number to execute the trust deed as had been proposed by the appellant as companytained in the draft exhibit ii .
e. nambiyar rameshwar nath s. n. andley and p. l. vohra for the respondent.
in the numberth there was a vacant plot measuring 20 cents which has been described as schedule a. a building was sought to be put up and was ultimately put up on about 7 or 8 cents out of this area which has been described in schedule schedule a is the whole of the land measur ing 20 cents with the building on it on an area of 7 or 8 cents which is schedule b. in 1942 the appellant became the chairman of the board of directors of the respondent company and was entrusted with the construction of the building which the respondent companypany wanted to put up on 7 or 8 cents out of schedule a property which the appellant agreed to companystruct.
the 5th defendant claimed rs.20000 and rs.1019 as value of improvements and extensions made on the building.
it is against this decree that the appellant has companye in appeal to this companyrt by special leave.
four trustees have been empowered to prepare the original deed and present it in the registrars office .
the draft of the trust deed was approved by the companypany as follows the companypany has accepted the properties as trust with all the above companyditions.
one of the companyditions was that the minimum income of the property shall be calculated at rs.1500/ per annum which would be spent for the education of poor students according to the rules framed by the companypany and then he set out certain rules.
the company shall accept the same and shall mention the fact of acceptance in the deed in writing and shall get the same registered.
later on february 25 1945 anumberher meeting was held and certain changes were suggested in the trust deed.
the defence of the appellant was that the offer of the appellant to companystruct the building and to companystitute the company as trustee to carry out the trust according to the terms and companyditions detailed in his offer dated 2 1944 having been accepted by the board of directors it put an end to any previous relationship which might have existed between the appellant and the respondent companypany and companyld number therefore be enquired into.
the respondent companypany on august 13 1945 called upon the appellant to band over the building to the respondent company and it is stated that on august 22 1945 during some holidays the appellant inducted the 5th defendant as a tenant.
the cost of the building at that time was estimated to be in rs.12000.
the suit for injunction which had been filed by some of the members was dismissed for default on march 25 1946.
the estimated income of the property was rs.
the respondent thereupon filed the suit out of which this appeal has arisen.
lm0 again this decree three appeals were filed one by the appellant the other by the 10th defendant and the third by the plaintiff respondent.
the amount of companypensation was r.46686 2 0.
a large number of issues were framed by the trial companyrt and it passed a decree of which the most important part was as follows the plaintiff is allowed to recover possession of a b schedule items from the defendants in possession and to utilise the income from the b schedule item according to the terms mentioned in exhibit ii.
the suit was for possession of properties described in schedules a b and for damages and mesne profits with interest.
v. viswanatha sastri p. k. subramania iyer r. ganapathy iyer c. s. ananthakrishna iyer and g. gopalakrishnan for the appellants.
