The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the Indian Trusts Act, particularly Sections 94 and 95, to determine the duties and liabilities of a person holding property for the benefit of another, and the trustee's duty to invest trust money and pay interest for a breach of trust.

Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.

1. This appeal arises out of a suit filed by the respondent on the original side of this Court to recover from the appellants, who were sued as the legal representatives of his deceased brother Abdul Wahid, the amount due to him in respect of the management of his estate. The suit was tried by Somayya, J., who granted the plaintiff a decree for Rs. 29,348-14-2. The appellants object to the decree only in respect of two of the sums which make up the aggregate of Rs. 29,348-14-2. The first objection is with regard to a sum of Rs. 2,730-1-0 allowed as a one-fourth share of a fixed deposit and the second objection is with regard to a sum of Rs. 9,760, allowed in respect of interest from the date of death of Abdul Wahid, which, took place in the month of September, 1932.

2. The respondent is the youngest son of the late Dr. N. Mohamed Oosman Sahib of Madras. Dr. Mohamed Oosman died on the 10th April, 1929. He was survived by three sons and two daughters. The respondent was then a minor. His eldest brother Abdul Wahid acted as the respondents guardian and took charge and managed his share of their fathers estate, which was partitioned amongst the sons and daughters on the 26th June, 1929. The total value of the estate was Rs. 4,00,000. It included immovable properties in Madras and Trichinopoly. The respondent was allotted as his share certain lands and houses in Trichinopoly, a house in Madras and Rs. 5,100 in cash. Each son and each daughter received as part of his or her share immovable property and the rest in cash. After the fathers death the respondent lived with his eldest brother in Madras until the month of April, 1931. Abdul Wahid then moved to Trichinopoly, where he was taken ill. He moved to his father-in-laws house in Mysore in June, 1932 and died in Bangalore in the following September. Abdul Wahid was survived by his son, the second appellant, and his wife the third appellant. The first appellant is his father-in-law and he has been made a party because he has been appointed the guardian of the property of the second appellant. The respondent attained his majority on the 5th January, 1933 and filed this suit on the 19th December, 1935.

3. It is not disputed that upto his death Abdul Wahid remained in possession of the respondents share of his fathers estate. The appellants put the respondent to full proof of his case. They went so far as to deny that Abdul Wahid had acted as the respondents guardian. That attitude has now been abandoned. It is accepted that Abdul Wahid was the de facto guardian of the respondent and as such was in a fiduciary position.

4. Before his death the father had placed a sum of money with the Indian Bank on fixed deposit. The deposit was not payable until the 1st August, 1930. On that date Abdul Wahid was paid the amount which with interest came to Rs. 10,920-4-0. The bank insisted on Abdul Wahid giving a receipt for one-fourth of this sum, Rs. 2,730-1-0, on behalf of the respondent who was still a minor. This is the amount which forms the subject-matter of the appellants first objection. The bank addressed the pay order for the Rs. 2,730-1-0 to the respondent who was described as a minor " represented by his eldest brother and guardian Oosman Abdul Wahid Esqr." The receipt was signed by Abdul Wahid as guardian. The case for the appellants is that as the respondent was allotted properties worth Rs. 1,00,000 on partition it must be taken that these included his share in the fixed deposit with the Indian Bank. This contention cannot be accepted. In the accounts relating to the partition there is no reference to this fixed deposit and as the receipt for one-fourth of the sum was taken in the name of the respondent, the only reasonable conclusion is that the division of the sum placed on fixed deposit was left in abeyance until it actually became payable. The appellants have led no evidence to show that the other heirs gave up their shares in this sum and there