Judgment

SAWANT, J.

( 1 ) SPECIAL leave granted.

BY a decree in C. S. No. 363 of 1912, schemes for administration of two trust estates were sanctioned. One trust estate comprised Premises No. 246, R. K. Mutta Road, Mylapore, Madras belonging to one Poonam-balam Pillai and the other trust estate comprised the adjoining Premises No. 247 belonging to his wife, Nagai Visalakshi Ammal. We are concerned in this appeal, with the premises bearing No. 246 belonging to the trust estate of Poonambalam Pillai. These premises were being used as a marriage hall [kalyanamandapam].

( 2 ) IT appears that in both the said trusts, hereditary trustees were appointed. It is not clear from the judgments of the courts below as to when the Official Trustee in place of or in addition to the hereditary trustees came on the scene. However, that is not relevant for the decision of the issue involved in the present appeal.

( 3 ) THE predecessor of the present appellant-Official Trustee had made an application to the High Court being Application No. 2043 of 1988, for permission to incur an expenditure of Rs. 6 lakhs for converting the existing tiled-roof of the marriage hall into RCC-roof and for providing Other facilities therein, In the application, the permission to incur other items of expenditure in the sums of Rs. 4,750. 00, Rs. 9,620. 00and Rs. 3,161. 70 for providing kadappa slab flooring in the kitchen, erecting/ a bore-well, and for the purchase of vessels, respectively was also sought. The report which was filed along with the application stated that the marriage hall would fetch a higher income if it was modernised by converting the existing tiled roof into RCC-roof and was provided with the other facilities. The report further gave an estimate of Rs. 6 lakhs prepared by the Assistant Engineer attached to the office of the official Trustee, in respect of the said modernisation plan. Along with the report, the estimate and the plan of construction were also filed. From the. report, it was seen that out of the total plinth area of 3822 s. f. , only 2145 s. f. were sought to be covered with RCC roof. The court by its order dated 3-5-1988 granted the application and accorded permission to incur all the expenditure mentioned therein.

( 4 ) IT appears that after the said sanction was given, one Kanakraj filed an application in the High Court for a direction to the Official Trustee to give a lease of the marriage hall to him on certain terms. That application was dismissed by the Court. While dismissing the application, the Court directed the Official Trustee to get the blue print and the approval of the concerned authorities and to commence the work of modernisation without any delay as ordered earlier on 3-5-1988.

( 5 ) PURSUANT to the direction, the then Official Trustee sent a communication dated 1-12-1988 to six architects requesting them to give their quotations for preparing the plan, estimate and design for conversion of the tiled-roof into RCC-roof and for- providing the other provisions as sanctioned by the Court. Of the six architects, only three responded. M/s. C. R. Narayan Rao, Architects and Engineers, by their letter of 9-12-1988 merely quoted the fees for their professional services without inspecting the premies. M/s. Madan Associates by their letter of 30-12-1988, after stating that they had inspected the site, gave particulars of the services to be rendered as well as of their fees for the same. The third architect, Mr. C. H. Gopinatha Rao by his communication on 7-12-1988 stated that he had inspected the property on 6-12-1988 and that it was worth demolishing the structure and constructing a new building as per the Development Control Rules of the Madras Metropolitan Authority.

( 6 ) THE present appellant took charge of the trust estate as the Official Trustee on 5-1-89, and on 12-1-1989 wrote a letter to one Mohammed Ibrahim Salt, architect, informing him that it was proposed to convert the existing tiled-roof of the marriage hall