Trust properties cannot be alienated by a trustee without specific authority, and mere revenue entries do not confer ownership rights against trust interests.

JUDGMENT :

V Srishananda, J.

Heard Sri.M.Narayana Reddy, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri. Preetham, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sri.Prabhakar D., learned counsel for respondent No.1.

2. Defendant Nos.2 and 3 in O.S.No.2/1992 are the appellants challenging the judgment and decree passed in the said suit dated 18.04.2007 by the I Additional District Judge, Kolar.

3. Parties are referred to as plaintiffs and defendants for the sake of convenience as per their original ranking before the Trial Court.

4. Facts in the nutshell which are utmost necessary for disposal of the appeal are as under:

4.1. Plaintiffs namely S.N.Lakshmipathi and Narayana Setty being the legal representatives of original plaintiff namely L.Ramanjaneya Setty filed a suit against Achamma, P.Ramaiah, J.Suresh Kumar and J.Danaraj with the following prayer in respect of following properties:

PRAYER

Wherefore the plaintiffs most humbly prays that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to pass judgment and decree against the defendants that:

a. Declaring the suit schedule properties are the trust properties of the P.Hanumappa Setty Hostel Trust.

b. Directing for setting aside the sale deed dated 05.03.1987 executed by the defendants 1 and 2 in favour of the defendants 3 and 4.

c. For issue of permanent injunction restraining the defendants not to dispose or alter the said suit schedule properties.

d. Directing the removal of the defendants 1 and 2 from the trust as the trustees and appoint a new suitable trustees for the benefit of the trust.

SCHEDULE

House property bearing No.(old) 1154/1184 New No.1353/1344 bounded on East: Property of Muniswamy Gowda, North, South and West: Roads situated at Jyothinagarapate, Mulbagal Town.

4.2. During the pendency of the suit, original plaintiff died and therefore, legal representatives are brought on record. So also defendant No.2 died and it was reported.

4.3. In the plaint, it is contended that suit property originally belonged to one P. Hanumappa Setty who is the husband of defendant No.1 on 05.10.1949. Said P. Hanumappa Shetty had executed deed of trust and created trust consisting of nine members under the name and style of ‘P.Hanumappa Setty Hostel’ which was catering to the needy students for free boarding and lodging for benefit of Jyothinagara Vysya students. Defendant No.1 was one of the trustees.

4.4. On 14.05.1951, defendant No.1 executed another trust deed including defendant No.1 and eight others and donated several items of the property mentioned in the said registered deed. The said registered deed included suit property also.

4.5. In the said trust deed, few conditions were stipulated which would enable the trustees to use the properties for the benefit of the trust and to retain the properties perpetually for the benefit of the trust.

4.6. The possession of the properties was also handed over to the trust and defendant No.1 agreed being the chair person of the said trust.

4.7. Among the said properties, one house property, described in the plaint schedule, was also part of the trust properties and with regard to the suit property, condition stipulated in the trust deed is that defendant No.1 is entitled to reside or lease out the said property till her lifetime.

4.8. Pursuant to the those conditions, chair person of the trust (defendant No.1) held the property of the trust and let out two portion of the suit property to defendant Nos.3 and 4 and they continued in possession of those portions as tenants.

4.9. Plaint averments further reveal that even though there was only life interest created