A purchaser of trust property is not liable for the trustee's misapplication of the sale proceeds unless there is evidence of fraud or collusion between the trustee and the purchaser.

VENKATADRI, J. : This appeal arises out of the suit, Original Suit No. 5 of 1958, instituted in the District Court, Tirunelveli by the appellant herein, for the administration of the estate of on a Joseph Costa (senior), and inter alia, to declare the alienation effected by the first defendant, as trustee of the said estate in favour of the tenth defendant, who in his turn alienated it in favour of the eleventh defendant, who, again in his turn alienated the properties in favour of the twelfth defendant, invalid and not binding on the plaintiff, and for directions for the proper disposal of the properties comprised in the suit estate, and alternatively to direct the alienees from the first defendant, that is defendants 10 to 14, or such of them as may be liable, to pay over to the administrator to be appointed by Court the value of the mitta properties and to restore to the estate the benefits they had unlawfully obtained as a result of the fraudulent breach of trust on the part of the first defendant.

2. The learned Additional District Judge dismissed the suit, with a finding that the first defendant had been guilty of breach of trust, and the sale executed by the first defendant in favour of the tenth defendant was a fraudulent breach of trust in which the purchaser, the predecessor of the tenth defendant has participated, but they had acquired indefeasible title to the properties by adverse possession and that the claim of the plaintiff including that of his father based on the Will had been satisfied and extinguished by reason of the partition and exchange arrangement exhibit B-28, and that the plaintiff was represented by his father, the third defendant, as curator and that he was, therefore, estopped by deed from claiming any further rights in respect of the suit properties.

3. The main facts leading up to the suit are not in dispute and may be briefly stated. One Joseph Costa (senior) died in July 1913, at Manapad, leaving behind him his last Will and testament, exhibit B-1 in the case, dated 30th May 1912, and considerable properties both in India and Ceylon, which he disposed of by the said Will.

Probate of the Will was obtained by the first defendant from the District Court, Tirunelveli, as well as the Ceylon Court, an executor named in the Will. Under the said Will, the eldest son, Stanislaus Costa (the first defendant) was directed to sell the mitta properties and convert them into cash within two years from the date of the testator's death, and from and out of the sale-proceeds pay certain legacies to certain ecclessiastical dignitaries, pay a further legacy of Rs. 2,000 to his third son, Joseph Costa (the plaintiffs father), purchase shop, buildings and godowns in Ceylon for Rs. 2000 each, to be held in trust, for his three daughters, and with the residue of the sale proceeds, purchase shop, buildings and go-downs or houses in Ceylon in his own name as executor, in trust, and pay the income therefrom to the testator's wife for life, and after her death, to his three sons jointly for their lives and after the death of his three sons, to such of their sons equally as shall be alive at the time of the death of his son who shall die last.

4. At the time of the death of Joseph Costa (senior), the plaintiffs father (Joseph Costa) and the first defendant were carrying on business under the name and style of Joseph Costa Bros. Plaintiffs father was in complete management and possession of the Ceylon properties. The plaintiffs father and the first defendant executed a promissory note for a sum of Rs. 20,000 under the name of Joseph Costa and Bros., exhibit B-5 dated 14th October 1929. in favour of the General Catholic Mission, Trichinopoly, whose interest subsequently devolved on the present tenth defendant, the Roman Catholic Diocese at Madurai hereafter called Mission authorities for convenience sake. In order to secure the payment of this amount, the first defendant executed a letter of guarantee to the mission t