Suit properties not vested in the transferees.

N.V.BALASUBRAMANIAN,J.

These three appeals are the typical examples of the case as to how the properties endowed for charities by charitably inclined persons are misused and resisted by suitors raising indefensible pleas when suit is instituted for recovery of possession of the trust properties. In all the appeals, various defendants in the suit are the appellants. The first respondent in all the appeals is the plaintiff. The plaintiff is represented by the Executive Officer of Sri Arunachaleswarar temple, Tiruvannamalai which is a famous temple in South India. The suit has been instituted by Kathayee Ammal Charities represented by the Executive Officer of Sri Arunachaleswarar temple. The plaintiff has instituted the suit for recovery of possession of the suit properties, to be precise, four items of landed properties and movables which originally belonged to one Kathayee ammal, the lady who executed a will dated 17.1.1925 which is her last will and testament. The lady has a mind of charitable disposition and she has, by her will, endowed item Nos.3 and 4 of the suit properties, which, according to her, should be utilised for the stay and for the feeding of poor Hindus pilgrims, excluding certain persons mentioned in the will, who visit Sri Arunachaleswarar Temple at Tiruvannamalai. She has also stated that not less than ten Hindu Sivanadiars should be fed describing the minimum meals for feeding such Sivanadiars and there should be poor feeding also. The lady has expressly provided that the charity should continue for ever. She has stated that the income from other properties described as item Nos.1 and 2 of suit properties should be utilised for the purpose of feeding poor Hindus and Sivanadiars in the said Math which she has bequeathed towards the charities and she has stated that the charities mentioned in will should be performed even after her lifetime and she nominated her foster son, Sundaram Pillai as a trustee to continue the charity and after his lifetime, his eldest son and in his absence, his eldest daughter should be the trustee of the trust. She has also provided that if the incomes from item Nos.1 and 2 of the suit properties are not sufficient to perform the charities, those properties can be sold only with prior permission of the trustees of Sri Arunachaleswarar temple. She also provided that till other properties are purchased, the income from the sale proceeds should be utilised for the performance of the charity. She has clearly indicated in her will that the charity should be named 'Kathayee Ammal Charities' and in all documents relating to the charity, the name, Kathayee Ammal Charities should be mentioned. In the will she has provided that item Nos.3 and 4 of the suit properties which are item No.1 in the will should not be sold in any event and if other properties are sold, the money should be utilised for the performance of the charity.

2. The case of the plaintiff is that Sundaram Pillai, after the death of testator, acted against her wishes and against the terms and conditions contained in the testament of the testator, Kathayee ammal and he never performed the charities. According to the plaint, Sundaram Pillai alienated suit properties in item Nos.1 and 2 by means of an exchange deed dated 29.12.1957 for a land situate in Polur, a place near to Tiruvannamalai in favour of one Mannar Chettiar for the personal benefits of Sundaram Pillai. It is stated that after the death of Sundaram Pillai, his eldest son first defendant in the suit became the trustee managing the trust properties and the defendants 1 and 2 were squandering the income of the suit properties and ultimately sold suit item No.3 to the fifth defendant without performing the charities mentioned in the deed. The defendants 1 and 2 also sold suit item No.4 in favour of the 8th defendant on 12.11.1980 and during the pendency of the suit itself. Mannar Chettiar, the owner of suit item Nos.1 and 2 sold the properties by sale deeds