The office of trusteeship in a charitable trust can devolve upon the eldest male member of the family for the time being, as and when succession to the office opens, if the terms of the trust deed clearly indicate that the founder intended the trust to be conducted permanently and that the office of trusteeship should devolve only upon a member of his family.

PALANISWAMY, J. :- The unsuccessful plaintiff in the lower Court is the appellant. He sued for declaration of his right to be the trustee of the plaint-mentioned charities and to direct the defendant to deliver possession of the suit properties to him and also to render a true and correct account of the income of the properties. Except plaint item 6, the rest of the plaint-mentioned properties originally belonged to one Narasimha Chettiar, the ancestor of the plaintiff and the defendants. On 22-6-1899, Narasimha Chettiar created a trust over those properties specifying what charities should be performed and providing for the mode of devolution of the office of trusteeship. He had four sons (1) Venkatarama Chettiar, (2) Subbarayalu Chettiar (3) Govindaswami Chettiar and (4) Ananthapadhmanabhan. Of these four persons. No. 1, Venkatarama Chettiar predeceased his father. Defendants 2 and 3 are the grandsons of Venkatarama Chettiar. Defendants 8, 9 and 10 are the male descendants of Ananthapadmanabhan. The plaintiff is the eldest son of Govindaswami Chettiar. Defendants 1, 4, 5, 6 and 7 are the male descendants of Subbarayalu Chettiar. On the death of Narasimha Chettiar, Subbarayalu Chettiar, the then eldest surviving son, became the trustee. He died in the year 1936. Thereupon, his eldest son Nagamayya Chetti took charge of the management of the trust and continued to function as such till his death in 1962. Govindaswami predeceased Subbarayalu Chettiar. But Ananthapadhmanabhan, who survived Subbarayalu Chettiar, did not take any action to become the trustee till his death in 1955. The plaintiff laid this suit alleging inter alia that under the terms of the trust deed, he, being the eldest male descendant of the original founder, was entitled to be the trustee and that the first defendant had no manner of right to be the trustee. It is in that view he prayed for the reliefs indicated above.

2. The suit was resisted mainly by the first defendant who contended that under the terms of the trust deed, the trusteeship devolved on Subbarayalu Chettiar on the death of Narasimha Chettiar and on the death of Subbarayalu Chettiar, the trusteeship devolved on Nagamayya Chetti and on the death of Nagamayya Chetti, the office devolved on the first defendant, the only son of Nagamayya Chetti. It was also contended that in any event Nagamayya Chetti had perfected title to the office of trusteeship by adverse possession for over the statutory period, that such title acquired by Nagamayya Chetti had devolved on the first defendant and that, as such, the plaintiff was not entitled to any relief. There was also a controversy as regards item 6 of the plaint schedule which had been purchased in the name of Subbarayalu Chettiar. The contention raised by the defendants was that it did not belong to the trust. But the lower Court has found that this item also belonged to the trust, though it was purchased in the name of Subbarayalu Chettiar. That part of the finding was not challenged before us on behalf of the defendants. The trial Court found that under the terms of the trust deed, the trusteeship is to devolve upon the eldest male member of the original foundery that the said mode of devolution was invalid by reason of creation of estates unknown to Hindu Law as laid down by the Privy Council in the well-known Tagore case, that in any event Nagamayya Chettiar had perfected title to the office of trusteeship by adverse possession for over 12 years and that consequently the plaintiff was not entitled to any relief as against the first defendant, son of Nagamayya Chetti. In this view, the trial Judge dismissed the suit. Hence this appeal.

3. Mr. Sundaram Iyer, appearing for the contesting defendants conceded before us that he cannot support the conclusion of the lower Court based upon the principle enunciated in Tagore case, for, the office of trusteeship in the instant case does not carry any personal interest of a beneficial nature. Whoever be t