A trustee cannot unilaterally act to deprive the company of its rights.

Judgement

KAPUR, J. : This is an appeal against the judgment and decree of the High Court to Travancore Cochin modifying the decree of the District Judge, Trichur. The appellant was defendant No. 1 in his personal capacity and defendant No. 2 in the capacity of a trustee of a trust. Defendant No. 5 was a tenant of the building which is the subject-matter of dispute between the parties, defendant No. 10 was its successors-in interest and the present respondent was the plaintiff in the suit.

2. The suit out of which this appeal has arisen was filed in the Court of the District Judge, Trichur, on October 31, 1945. The suit was for possession of properties described in schedules A and B and for damages and mesne profits with interest. The defence was that the appellant was not 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 constituting himself the trustee of the trust. The 5th defendant claimed Rs. 20,000 and Rs. 1,019 as value of improvements and extensions made on the building. A large number of issues were framed by the trial Court and it passed a decree of which the most important part was as follows:

(a) The plaintiff is allowed to recover possession of A and 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.

(b) The 5th and 10th defendants are permitted to remove within a period of 2 months from today the constructions and additions made in the A and B schedule items by them without causing any damage to the plaint properties.

3. Against this decree three appeals were filed one by the appellant, the other by the 10th defendant and the third by the plaintiff-respondent. The High Court in appeal modified the decree of the trial Court and held that the only claim which the appellant could put forward was for compensation for the structure he had erected. The amount of compensation was Rs. 46,686-2-0. The High Court also held that the respondent was entitled to recover mesne profits as against the appellant at the rate of Rs. 88 per annum till the recovery of property mentioned in schedule A and at the rate on Rs. 1,500 per annum in regard to schedule B buildings. It is against this decree that the appellant has come in appeal to this court by special leave

4. In order to understand the points in controversy it will be helpful to give certain facts which led up to this litigation. The respondent is a non-profit sharing company, the main object of which seems to be to provide pecuniary assistance to the poor for educational and other charitable purpose. The respondent company owned survey No. 465 in the revenue estate of the village Trichur abutting on the public road in 1944-45. It was 55 cents in area. The respondent company erected buildings on the south end which had been rented to the then Imperial Bank of India now the State Bank of India, and in the middle portion there was a building which has been leased out to the Post Office. In the north 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 B. Schedule A is the whole of the land measuring 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 company wanted to put up on 7 or 8 cents out of schedule A property which the appellant agreed to construct. The cost of the building at that time was estimated to be Rs. 12,000. 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 constructed at a cost of Rs. 2,000 expended by the resp