The main legal point established in the judgment is that the provisions of a decree must be carefully interpreted to determine their executability, and the court must consider whether the provisions form part of the permanent scheme of administration or are intended to be immediately executable.

Abdur Rahaman, J.

1. This appeal arises out of a suit under Section 73 (2), Civil P.C., for refund of certain assets paid to defendant 1 on his application for rateable distribution. The facts which led to the present suit are that one Vijjappu Kamakshamma executed a will on 16th September 1918 bequeathing her stridhanam properties of the value of Rs. 20,000 for the establishment of a public watershed and a public choultry for feeding people and appointed her brother Nalam Subrarnanyam as an executor and a trustee for carrying out her directions contained in the will. On the allegation that Nalam Subramaniam had failed to carry out the directions in his sisters will after her death, a suit O.S. No. 8 of 1932 under Section 92, Civil P.C., was instituted in the Court of the District Judge of East Godavari at Rajahmundry for Nalam Subramaniams removal from the trusteeship and for a settlement of a scheme. Nalam Subranianiam died before filing a written statement and his son and widow were brought on record as his legal representatives. A decree (Ex. B) was eventually passed against these representatives on 11th February under which a scheme was framed by the Court and the present defendant 1 (who had applied for and succeeded in getting rateable distribution) was appointed as a sole trustee for the management of the trust. The following provisions of the decree are important:

(1) that the suit trust be managed by a single trustee as per terms of the scheme hereto appended;

(3) that the trust property do consist of Rupees 29,886-6-9 as on this date and that it do carry further interest at six per cent, per annum.

(4) that the trustee do realise the trust properties and administer the same as per the scheme hereto appended;

(5) that defendants 2 and 3 do pay the plaintiffs Rs. 604 as and for their costs in the suit and do bear their costs in the suit being Rs. 201; and

(6) that defendants 2 and 3 do deliver the utensils and articles as per list below to the trustee within two months from, this date and in default do pay Rs. 157-14-3 their value to the trustee.

The only clause which is of any consequence in the scheme framed by the Court and attached to the decree reads as follows:

4. All the trust properties either cash or moveables shall vest in the trustee for the time being and he shall take possession of the same through Court if necessary in execution of this decree and manage the same on behalf of the public.

2. Not being satisfied with the decree, Ex. B, that was passed on 11th February 1933, the trustee appointed under that decree brought a suit O.S. No. 57 of 1934 in the same Court for a declaration that he had a right to recover the money decreed in O.S. No. 8 of 1932 from out of the assets of the late Nalam Subranianiam in the hands of defendant 1 and that the trust had a charge over the properties of the deceased Subramaniam generally and over the properties A to E mentioned in the schedule attached to the plaint in particular. The important clauses of the decree (Ex. A) passed in that suit on 15th September 1936 are:

(1) That the plaintiff be and hereby is entitled to recover from the assets of the late Nalam Subramaniam in the hands of defendant 1 the money decreed in O.S. No. 8 of 1932 on the file of this Court.

(2) That a charge for the recovery of the money decreed in Clause (1) supra be and the same hereby is, created over all the properties proved to have been acquired by the late Nalam Subramaniam after llth June 1924.

(3) That the question which of the properties have been acquired by the late Nalam Subramaniam after 11th June 1924 be determined by the executing Court in execution proceedings.

3. The other clauses in the decree only provided for costs and need not be reproduced. In the meantime, three decrees were obtained against the estate of Nalam Subramaniam. The appellant obtained a a decree for Rs. 70,000 and odd in O.S. No. 79 of 1931. A decree in O.S. No. 19 of 1933 was obtained by defendant 3 and defendant