A trustee must not use or deal with the trust property for his private advantage. The 1st defendant cannot have or claim to have a saswatham right in the suit properties which belong to the Devaswom of which he is a trustee; likewise the plaintiff also cannot have or claim to have a tenancy in them to his advantage. Whatever income the plaintiff or the 1st defendant derives from the suit properties they are bound to account to the Devaswom and to spend for purposes of the Devaswom only. Neither can he make any profit out of it.

1. The suit properties belong to Pulimpidavu Devaswom of which the plaintiff and the 1st defendant are the hereditary trustees. The 1st defendant's tarwad having been in management of the Devaswom in 1042 M. E. leased the suit properties to Thavarool Puthiyedath tarwad on rent of 1750 seers of paddy per annum. In O. S. No. 297 of 1923 the tenants' rights were brought to sale and purchased by one Othenan Nambiar, who assigned the same to the plaintiff's tarwad. Treating the plaintiff as the lessee of the property under him the 1st defendant obtained decrees for rent in O. S. Nos. 307 of 1951, 312 of 1954, 992 of 1955 and 266 of 1956 and had realised the amounts under the first two decrees. The latter two decrees remain to be executed. In the present suit the plaintiff seeks declaration that he is now the managing trustee of the Devaswom entitled to collect the rent of the suit properties and that the 1st defendant has no 'saswatham' right in the properties as claimed by him, to restrain the 1st defendant from executing the decrees any further, and to realise from him the rent of the Devaswom properties collected by him and not been spent for the Devaswom.

The defendants claim the suit properties in'saswatham' right under the Devaswom and the plaintiff a lessee thereof, deny the plaintiff's being the managing trustee of the Devaswom and assert the income of the properties to have been spent for purposes of the Devaswom.

The court below found the plaintiff and the 1st defendant co-trustees of the Devaswom, and the 1st defendant to have saswatham right in the suit properties and dismissed the suit. Hence this appeal by the plaintiff.

2. The finding of the court below that the plaintiff and the 1st defendant are the present hereditary trustees of the Devaswom is not challenged before me by either side.

The 1st defendant claims a Saswatham right in the suit properties under the Devaswom and that has been found by the court below. The claim is that the tarwad of the 1st defendant has to conduct certain daily poojas in the temple and as consideration thereof has been granted the suit properties in saswatham right, and that it is by virtue of that right that he has demised the properties to Thavarool Puthiyedath tarwad of whom the plaintiff is the present assignee.

3. The trustee of a Devaswom, like any other trustee, shall not use or deal with the trust property for his private advantage.

Ganapathi Iyer, in his well-known treatise, Hindu and Mohammedan Endowments, 2nd Edn., page 604, observed:

"A trustee must not lend trust-money to himself. The principle is that a trustee must not in any way make use of the trust property or his position as trustee for his own interest or private advantage, nor may he enter into engagements in which he has, or can have, a personal interest which conflicts, or possibly may conflict, with the interests of those whom he is bound to protect. Thus a lease of trust property to oneself or to the tarwad of which the trustee is a karnavan or a member or to a co-trustee will be invalid .... The general principle is well-established that a trustee cannot obtain any pecuniary benefit."

In his Book "Hindu Law of Religious and Charitable Trusts", 2nd Edn., pp.227, 285 and 287, B. K. Mukherjee has observed:

"Like the trustee in English Law, a shebait has to act gratuitously and he cannot charge the Debutter estate for any remuneration on account of the time and labour he spends over its affairs .... The law is well established that in the absence of any provision in the deed of dedication or any usage to that effect, a shebait has no right to take any portion of the income of the Debutter estate nor even the surplus that remains after meeting the expenses of the deity.. .

A Shebait who has accepted the office of a shebait or acknowledged himself as such is incapable of asserting any hostile title against the idol or setting up jus tertii in others. This disability is implicit in any person who holds a fiduciary p