The trustee's deliberate disobedience of the trust scheme and the plaintiff's awareness of the prohibition under the scheme influenced the court's decision.

Horwill, J.

1. The appellant brought a suit on two promissory notes for amounts advanced to the Annadhana kattalai for the necessary performance of the duties imposed on the trust. The first defendant was the trustee of the kattalai and the second defendant was the receiver of the kattalai property, who has since been replaced by the executive officer of the temple. It appears from the plaint that the money was not advanced direct to the kattalai. The plaintiff, who had received a power of attorney from the trustee, was managing the kattalai on the first defendants behalf, receiving income from the property, and making purchases; and the sum claimed is that admitted by the first defendant to be due to the plaintiff on account of provisions and other necessaries supplied to the kattalai in excess of the income. The defendants contended that some of the alleged items of expenditure were not true; but it was found that the plaintiff had properly accounted for the money mentioned in the promissory notes and that it was properly expended on the temple. The second defendant raised another plea and that was that the first defendant had no power to borrow money, that the plaintiff knew of it, and that he was not therefore entitled to recover any of the money, even though it might have been true that he advanced it. The District Munsif of Tiruvarur found both points against the second defendant. In appeal, the Subordinate Judge of Tiruvarur agreed with the District Munsif that the plaintiff had properly accounted for all the money advanced; but he held that the scheme which had been framed for the temple by the High Court absolutely prohibited such an advance being made. He therefore found himself constrained to allow the appeal and dismissed the suit.

2. The attention of the Courts below seems to have been focussed on Section 23 of the scheme, which is to this effect:

All borrowing from and all lending on interest to the funds of the trust is absolutely prohibited.

3. The rest of the section deals with the punishments to be inflicted in case of a disobedience of this injunction. It has to be noticed that the word borrowing is followed by from, which shows that the prohibition is against borrowing from the funds of the trust. That was not done here; but the section also prohibits lending on interest to the funds of the trust. If the plaintiff, as the terms of his promissory note suggest, had lent money on interest to the trust - even though it was for necessary purposes - I think such a loan would have fallen within the scope of the prohibition under Section 23. But I do not think that Section 23 as it stands meant to work a prohibition of the supplying of articles for the carrying on of the services of the kattalai. Nevertheless, from a reading of the scheme as a whole, there can be no doubt that the purpose of the scheme is that the trustees should not be left in possession of any money at all. As soon as they collect money, they have to deposit it with the treasurer of the temple, they have to submit a budget to the Board of Control three months before the beginning of each year, and they can only spend money in accordance with the budget as accepted. They are then allowed to draw on the amount standing to their credit in the accounts kept by the treasurer for each kattalai and they may not exceed the budget allotment. There can also be no doubt, on a general reading of the scheme, that it was directly against the principle of the scheme that the trustee of the kattalai should try to circumvent certain sections of the scheme by taking supplies from a person and contracting some liability on behalf of the trust. That this disobedience of the scheme was not accidental has been proved by the defendant; and the lower appellate Court has found very clearly that the first defendant deliberately ignored the scheme. He says in paragraph 13 of his judgment:

It would appear that notwithstanding the scheme, the first defendant as trustee of