Venkataraman, J.- This is an appeal against the Judgment of Ramanujam, J., convicting the appellant, Yegnanarayaniah of contempt and sentencing him to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and a fine of Rs. 2,000.

2. The facts are these: One Subbamma created a trust called “Vavilla Venkateswara Sastrulu Trust” by deed dated 30th June, 1956. She was the sole trustee during her life and she appointed the appellant (her sister’s son-in-law) as the sole trustee after her death. The appellant took charge as sole trustee on 12 th September, 1958. She left a will in respect of her private properties and appointed the appellant as executor. On the allegation that the appellant did not perform any of the charities mentioned in the trust deed and misappropriated certain amounts, some persons filed a suit, C.S. No. 88 of 1970 seeking the removal of the appellant from the trusteeship. During the pendency of the suit, the appellant and an advocate Sri S.S. Marthandam, were appointed joint receivers. After an elaborate trial, Ramanujam, J., found that the appellant had diverted an amount of Rs. 1,22,769 from the trust fund to the executor’s account without any authority or jurisdiction, in addition to the various enormous amounts misappropriated by him. He also found that he had lent a sum of Rs. 1,00,000 to his wife at a nominal interest at 7½ per cent. per annum in the year 1967. This amount was not really available for investment because necessary public dues like income-tax, wealth tax, estate duty etc., had not been paid. In effect he found that the appellant had wrongfully diverted the funds. When questioned about the loan in his evidence at the trial, the appellant stated that he had taken as collateral security by deposit of title deeds of the property of his wife, namely, Door No. 495, Tiruvottiyur High Road. Ramanujam, J., decreed the suit, directed the appellant to be removed from the trusteeship and ordered him to hand over the management of the properties of the trust to the Official Trustee, Madras. The appellant handed over some documents but not the documents relating to the deposit of title deeds by his wife in respect of Door No. 495, Tiruvottiyur High Road.

3. An application No. 184 of 1973, was made by the plaintiffs for directions to the appellant to produce the deeds. Ramanujam, J., by order dated 9th February, 1973, directed the appellant to produce the said deeds within a week. By his further order dated nth February, 1973, he directed the appellant to be present in Court on the hearing date, namely 22nd February, 1973. The appellant did not appear on that date and did not produce the documents. Thereupon Ramanujam, J., by order dated 27th February, 1973 directed him to appear before the Court on 8th March, 1973 to show cause why he should not be proceeded with for committing contempt of Court in not complying with the orders of Court dated 9th February, 1973 and 17th February, 1973. This notice was accordingly served on the appellant on 7th March, 1973.

4. The appellant filed an affidavit in answer to this show cause notice. He stated therein that he was not in possession of title deeds relating to Door No. 495, Tiruvottiyur High Road, belonging to his wife. We are not concerned with the other title deeds. Ramanujam, J., however held by order dated 16th March, 1973, that it was a belated statement, that his conduct showed that he was in possession of the title deeds which he accepted as collateral security for the loan advanced to his wife, that he wilfully suppressed them, that he was actuated by fraudulent motive in not bringing the documents because he had allowed the promissory note to become time-barred, and for enforcing the mortgage, for which a longer period of limitation was available the title deeds would be required and the appellant wanted to put obstacles in the way of the Official Trustee recovering the loan and that was why he did not produce the documents. The conduct of the appellant being highly

Click Here to Read the rest of this document