The main legal point established in the judgment is that in charitable trusts, the power of the majority of trustees to bind the minority does not negate the necessity of mutual consultation, and a single trustee can sue for redemption without consulting others.

1. This is a suit for redemption. The plaintiff is one of the Urallers of the Killikurishi devaswom. The kanom sought to be redeemed is of the year 1884. It was granted to the family of defendants Nos. 1 to 3. Defendants Nos. 5 to 10 are impleaded as the remaining Urallers of the temple. The defendants set up a renewal in 1905 to which the plaintiff was no party. The eleventh defendant is the assignee of the rights of the Kanomdars. The Courts below have held the renewal to be invalid and given a decree to the plaintiff for the redemption. The eleventh defendant has preferred this second appeal.

2. A preliminary objection was taken that the eleventh defendant had no right to prefer the second appeal inasmuch as the plaintiffs co-urallers did not contest the decree of the lower Appellate Court. We see no force in this objection. The eleventh defendant as the assignee of the mortgage interset is entitled to question the right of one of the co-mortgagors to redemption, whether or not the remaining comortgagors acquiesce in the claim of the plaintiff.

3. It is argued in second appeal that the plaintiff was a consenting party to the renewal and that his name appears in exhibit XXIV as one of the persons present when the resolutions therein set out were adopted. It appears there "that it is resolved that the Uralam that manages the affairs of the respective years should grant renewals with the greatest possible number of Urallers, receiving the renewal fees, signing fees at the rate now settled from tenants whose term of lease has expired." The actual renewal now impeached is exhibit I. The plaintiff was no party to its execution; nor was he consulted about it. We do not understand exhibit XXIV to dispense with the necessity for all the Urallers being consulted before the execution of the renewal. The greatest possible number of Urallers receiving the renewal fees" does not mean that it is left to the option of a majority to set at nought a minority and to carry on the business of the devaswom in the matter of renewals without any reference to that minority or without inviting its co-operation. We must therefore hold that the plaintiff not having been consulted in respect of the renewal in question is not precluded from impeaching it.

4. It is next contended that the majority of the trustees of the devaswom were parties to the renewals and that in the case of a charitable trust the consent of the majority is sufficient to validate the transaction. "In the due administration of all trusts of a private nature the vote or act of the majority of the trustees cannot in the absence of an express or implied power bind a dissenting minority." (See Luke v. South Kensington Hotel Company (1879)11 Ch. P. 121.) But it has long been held, owing probably to the validity of perpetuities in charities and the consequent perpetual succession of trustees which would produce a dead-look in the administration if unanimity were insisted on that a majority of trustees has power to bind the minority (See Tudors Charitable Trusts, page 259). It does not appear to us to follow from the exception of the validity of the acts of the majority in public and charitable trusts that they may transact the affairs of the trust without any reference to the minority. On the other hand it seems to us that the very principle of recognising the validity of the acts of the majority involves the necessity of the majority being ascertained after mutual discussion among all the members A minority before mutual consultation may be converted into a majority after it. Unanimity on all occasions may be impossible. A majority after consultation and discussion is the nearest approach to it. Reliance was placed on The Attorney-General v. Shearman (1839) 48 E.R. 1119 in support of the view that a majority is sufficient even though the minority had no opportunity to express their views. In this case there were eleven trustees. There was an original lease by them to one last. There