The judgment established the illegality of the compromise agreement under Contracts Act, Section 23, and emphasized the trustee's liability for negligence and wilful default, reinforcing fiduciary duties in trust management.

JUDGMENT

1. Three persons, Paramsuk Chandra, Ashutosh Chandra and Harihar Chandra were heavily involved in debts in the year 1904. On 28th April 1904, they executed a trust deed by which they conveyed all their properties to Maharaja Manindra Chandra Nundi as trustee for payment of their debts (Ex; B, C 115). We have marked Part I, Vol. I as A; Part II Vol. I as B; Part II Vol. II as C; supplementary paper book Part I as D and supplementary paper book Part II as E. The trustee accepted the trust and was in possession of the trust estate up to his death in November 1929. He did not however render account of trust estate. While he was trustee some of the immovable properties of the trust estate, Sribati and others, were sold at the instance of creditors and were purchased by him. He also redeemed the ornaments which had been pledged by the Chandras to others and kept them in his possession as trustee. There is now no controversy regarding the title to mehals Sribati and others which he had purchased while he was trustee. They still formed part of the trust estate notwithstanding his purchase. Before the date of the suit, Paramsukh, Ashutosh and Harihar had died. The original plaintiffs - plaintiffs 1 to 5 - are the sons of Paramsukh. The added plaintiff - plaintiff 6 - is a son of Harihar, pro forma defendants 2 to 4 are the sons of Ashutosh and pro forma defendant 6 is the remaining son of Harihar. Defendant 1, the principal defendant, is the son and heir of Maharaja Monindra Chandra Nandi.

2. After the death of Maharaja Monindra Chandra there were disputes between the Chundras and the Maharaja Srish Chandra over the possession of Sribati. The Chundras claimed the same as part of the trust estate but the Maharaja set up a personal title. A large number of criminal cases cropped up in which their servants and officers were involved. In 1931 many criminal cases were pending against the servants and officers of the Chundras in the Court of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Katwa. Some of the Maharaja's men had been convicted and appeals were pending in the Court of the District Magistrate of Burdwan. Some of the cases related to non-com-poundable offences. The District Magistrate arranged a meeting at the Katwa Dak Bunglow at which he himself, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Katwa, persons representing the three branches of Chundras and two representatives of Maharaja Srish Chandra were present. The object of the District Magistrate was to bring about peace and harmony between the parties. At that meeting a compromise was effected and the result thereof was embodied in a memorandum of agreement dated 3rd May 1931. (Ex. Q.E-30). Paramsukh, who was then alive, and his son Supravat signed. Dharmadas, a son of Ashutosh, who was then dead, signed on his own behalf and on behalf of his brothers, and Dhanapati, a son of Harihar, who was also dead at the time, signed on his own behalf and on behalf of his brother. Harendra Kristo Boy, Chief Secretary, and A.G. Sen, Private Secretary of Maharaja Srish Chandra signed on the latter's behalf. The pleaders of the respective parties and the District and the Sub-Divisional Magistrate signed as witnesses. The evidence is that the District Magistrate dictated the terms to his confidential clerk who prepared the memorandum. A sum of Rs. 30,000 was settled as the liability of the Chundras to Maharaja Srish Chandra "on trust and all other accounts," and each branch of the Chandras was to pay Rs. 10,000 to the Maharaja. Paramsukh was to pay the latter an additional sum of Rs. 9000. Each branch was to pay Rs. 1000 to the Maharaja for "costs of litigation," that is, the costs of the criminal cases. These are the provisions of the three clauses of para. 1. The next three paragraphs deal with the mode of payment of the said sums, and with the appraisement and sale of the ornaments which the late Maharaja held as trustee. Para. 4 provides that the mehals Sribati and others would remain in the possession of t