JUDGMENT

Mookerjee, J. - Take the question of estoppel first.

2. It does not arise at all. A former abuse of trust cannot be pleaded against a trustee who seeks to prevent a repetition of that abuse, even if he were formerly implicated in the same indefensible course against which he is seeking to protect the trust property: Juggut Mohini v. Sokheemoney (1871) 14 Mad. I. A. 289 : 17 W. R. 41. and Mallika v. Ratanmani 1 C. W. N. 493.

3. What do yon say as to the case of Doe v. Horne (1842) 3 Q. B. D. 760 : 61 R. R. 397. In that case the mortgagors were empowered to raise money on mortgage, while here the palms cannot be alienated.

4. There was no issue on estoppel; that question has been raised here for the first time.

5. Here the transfer is void under Statute, i.e., Scripture of Hindu Law. For the principle against estoppel, see Bigelow p. 514, Ch. 17, Section 1.

6. Next, as regards the second contention of the appellant, I submit that the custom of transferring a pala or selling the office of a shebait: even to a person of the same caste or sect can never be reasonable and valid: see Kuppa v. Dorasami I. L. R (1882) Mad. 76. Juggurnath v. Kishen (1867) 7 W. R. 266. and Raja Vurmah v. R