The main legal principle established in the judgment is that the trusteeship of a religious or charitable institution cannot be held to pass as an annexe to the impartible estate when the estate is transferred to a stranger, as per the Madras Impartible Estates Act (Madras Act II of 1904), Section 7.

1. The question arising for decision in this appeal is whether the trusteeship of the suit choultry founded for feeding wayfarers goes with the ownership of the impartible estate and passes even to a stranger when he becomes the transferee of the estate. The suit choultry is situate at Teni, midway between the headquarters of the Thevaram Zamindari, which is an impartible estate in Madura district, and Madura, the headquarters of the district. The choultry was founded between 1875 and 1877 by Konda Bommu Naicker, the then Zamindar of the Thevaram Zamin. For the upkeep and conduct of the charity Konda Bommu Naicker endowed certain lands, shops and buildings situate in several villages. The village of Teni where the choultry is situate is outside the Thevaram Zamindari. The appellants case is that the founder intended the choultry to be annexed to the Zamindari itself and that whosoever is the Zamindar for the time being of the Thevaram Zamin is to be the trustee and manager of the choultry. It is also said that by the usage of the institution the Zamindar for the time being is entitled to the trusteeship of the suit choultry.

2. After Konda Bommu Naicker who died in 1877, his eldest son Shanmughavalla became the Zamindar and he was also the trustee of the suit choultry and after him his daughter Bangarammal succeeded to the trusteeship. By a compromise in O.S. No. 31 of 1925, Bangarammal transferred the Zamindari in favour of the first plaintiff who is a stranger belonging to another caste altogether. Respondents 2 to 5 are Konda Bommu Naickers brothers daughters sons and they claim as the nearest heirs of the original founder. The first respondent is Shanmugavallas wifes brothers son and is now in management claiming the right under a will said to have been executed by Shanmugavallas widow. The first plaintiff in the lower Court and the first appellant here is the present proprietor of the Thevaram Zamindari. The second plaintiff in the lower Court and the second appellant here is described to be the choultry itself represented by the trustee the first appellant. It is enough to refer to the first appellant as the appellant as it is his individual right that is questioned in this litigation. We are not concerned with the title of the respondents and the only question is whether the appellant is entitled to the trusteeship of the choultry in question. The lower Court held that the trusteeship did not pass to the appellant and that an alienee of the estate does not become the trustee of the choultry. The suit was accordingly dismissed and hence this appeal.

3. The appellants learned advocate urges that the intention of the founder was that whoever is the Zamindar for the time being should also be the trustee of the choultry in question. He also urges that the usage of the institution is also that the trusteeship should be in the Zamindar for the time being. We cannot accept these arguments. There is no deed of trust and we are asked to gather the intention of the founder from the devolution of the trusteeship after the founders death. The alleged usage is also based on the same considerations. The trust came into existence only in 1875 and there has not been time enough for any usage to grow. There have been only two successions and the mere fact that after the original founder, his eldest son succeeded both to the Zamindari and to the trusteeship of the choultry and that after him his daughter did so is not enough to found a case of usage upon. Reliance is placed by the appellant upon a partition deed executed by Shanmuga-valla and his brother under which the trusteeship was allotted to Shanmugavalla and a provision made that if Shanmugavalla mismanaged the property the Local Fund authorities should take over the management. We are of opinion that this partition deed does not afford any basis for the appellants claim. Both the sons of the original founder are parties to the document, and they both agreed that the elder sh