Judgment

HEGDE, J.: This appeal by certificate is directed against the decision of the High Court of Madras in A. S. No. 276 of 1955. The question that aries for decision herein is whether the appellants or the respondent should be held to be the trustees of the suit trust. The Trial Court upheld the claim of the appellants whereas the High Court in appeal came to the conclusion that the trusteeship has devolved on the respondent.

2. For the purpose of deciding the controversy before us it is not necessary to refer to the various facts that were placed before the Trial Court or the High Court. The facts material for our present purpose are these:

3. One Rangayya Sethurayar who will hereinafter be referred to as Rangayya 1 was a well to do person. He died in the year 1886 leaving behind him his wife Karuthammal. He had no issues but he was bringing up his brother s son Dharmalinga Sethurayar as his foster son. He executed a will on June 25, 1884 (Exh. A-1) under which be constituted a trust in respect of some of his properties for the purpose of carrying on the water supply charity and Dwadesi Kattalai charity in the choultry built by him. Under the said will he constituted Dharmalinga Sethurayar and his wife Karuthammal as the trustees of the trust in question after his death. The will also provides that after the lifetime of the aforementioned two persons the sons of Dharmalinga Sethurayar should be the trustees and in their absence the vamsathar of Dharmalinga Sethurayar should continue to conduct the said charities. Dharmalinga Sethurayar died in 1907 but Karuthammal continued to live till 1932. After the death of Dharmalinga sethurayar, Karuthammal continued as the sole trustee of the trust in question till her death. Thereafter Rangayya Sethurayar (to be hereinafter referred to as Rangayya II) took over the trusteeship and continued to manage the trust till his death on 9th May, 1953. The said Rangayya died issueless. The respondent claims to be the sister of said Rangayya and as such claims to be trustee of the suit trust. On the other hand the appellants who are the grandsons of the paternal uncle of Rangayya II are pressing their claim for the trusteeship on the ground that they belong to the Vamsa of Rangayya II.

4. The respondent"s claim that she is the sister of Rangayya II is contested by the appellants as mentioned earlier. The Trial Court held that the respondent has failed to prove that she is the sister of Rangayya II but the High Court upheld her claim. We agree with the High Court in its finding that there is satisfactory evidence to show that the respondent is the sister of Rangayya II. That fact was specifically admitted by the first appellant in the counter affidavit flied by him in I. A. No. 171 of 1954. It may be noted that this admission was made after the dispute between the parties had commenced. At that stage the only plea advanced by the appellants was that though the respondent was the sister of Rangayya II, she was not entitled to succeed to the trusteeship under law. The High Court has rightly discarded the subsequent version put forward by the appellants to the effect that the admission in question was made under a wrong impression and the same was based on the information supplied by one Subbanna Nattar. The said Subbanna Nattar has not been examined as witness in the case. That apart the appellants and the respondent are near relations and hence the plea of the appellants that they did not know the exact relationship between the respondent and Rangayya II is unacceptable. Further if they did not know the relationship they would not have admitted that she was the sister of Rangayya II. This admission is a very important piece of evidence. It cannot be brush aside lightly as the learned Trial Judge has done. That admission is further supported by the witnesses examined on behalf of the respondent, whose evidence has been believed by the High Court. The contrary evidence given by D. W. 10 has not