A trustee cannot set up his own title to the trust property adversely against the interest of the beneficiary, and is not entitled to be reimbursed for the expenses made for the structures on the said land.

( 1 ) THIS appeal at the instance of the plaintiff No. 2 is against the judgment and decree dated May 13, 1963 passed in Title Appeal No. 994 of 1963 by Additional District Judge, 7th Court, Alipore modifying the judgment and decree dated June 27, 1962 passed by Subordinate Judge, 7th Court, Alipore in Title Suit No. 66 of 1957 and it arises out of a suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession of the suit land or in the alternative for cancellation of the kobala standing in the name of the defendant.

( 2 ) THE salient facts of the case are that the plaintiff's father Mahadeb Banerjee and the plaintiff No. 1 Durga Charan Banerji, brother of the plaintiff No. 2, arranged the marriage of plaintiff No. 2 with the defendant's son Prodyote Kumar Ghosal. On the demand of the defendant the plaintiff's father had to give a sum of Rs. 4,000 as dowry to the defendant who gave thirty Bharis of gold ornaments to plaintiff No. 2 prepared out of the said money. The plaintiff's father also gave Rs. 400 in kind at the time of marriage. Immediately before the marriage the defendant on coming to know that the plaintiff's father Mahadeb Banerjee who was a broker was shortly going to acquire the disputed plot of land at a nominal price from one Dr. Biseswar Dutta in appreciation of his services rendered to him suggested to the plaintiff's father for making a gift of the said land to plaintiff No. 2 and the defendant promised to construct a dwelling house thereon at his own cost for the benefit of the plaintiff No. 2. The plaintiff's father agreed to give the said land to plaintiff No. 2 as soon as the same would be available to him. The marriage of the plaintiff No. 2 with the son of the defendant was solemnised on Nov. 28, 1947. Immediately after marriage the defendant wanted to have the said land transferred and he put pressure on the plaintiff No. 2 to have the transfer of the land made by her father soon. The plaintiff No. 2 communicated the said proposal to her father and brother, the plaintiff No. 1. The plaintiff's father Mahadeb had to accept the proposal of the defendant on the importunities of the plaintiff No. 2. The defendant suggested that the conveyance of the suit land should be taken directly in his name from Dr. Biseswar Dutta. But Dr. Biseswar Dutta did not agree to it. Thereupon Mahadeb Banerjee got the conveyance executed by Dr. Dutta in the name of plaintiff No. 1 Durga Charan on March 22, 1948. On the suggestion of the defendant to execute a kobala in respect of the suit land in his name instead of making a deed of gift in favour of his newly married daughter-in-law, plaintiff No. 2 the plaintiff No. 1 and his father eventually yielded to his proposal. On April 24, 1948, the plaintiff No. 1 executed a deed of sale without any consideration in the name of the defendant for the benefit and advancement of his sister, the plaintiff No. 2, Padmarani. It has been stated that the house standing on the said land was constructed by the defendant not within his own money but with the dowry money of Rs. 4,000 received by the defendant from the plaintiff's father for purchase of ornaments for the plaintiff No. 2. The defendant, it has been pleaded, had no means or source of income to provide the money required for construction of the house on the suit land. The conveyance in question is for the benefit and advancement of the plaintiff No. 2 and structures standing thereon being constructed with her money she is entitled to the same. This suit had been filed for declaration of the plaintiff's title to the suit property and for recovery of possession. There is also an alternative prayer for cancellation of the kobala as the same was vitiated by fraud, coercion and undue influence.

( 3 ) THE defendant contested the claim of the plaintiff denying the allegations that the deed of sale was without consideration and the same was made in his name for the benefit of plaintiff No. 2. It has been stated that the said l