SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1933 Supreme(Mad) 346

KRISHNAN PANDALAI, CURGENVEN, PANDALAI
Tirunarayana Pillai – Appellant
Versus
P. R. Y. Manickavachagam Chettiar – Respondent


JUDGMENT

Pandalai, J.

1. The appellants are defendants 1 and 2 in the lower Court. On the death of appellant 1 (defendant 1) pending this appeal the other appellant applied to add his legal representative, who opposed the application and stated that he did not wish to continue the appeal. The appellants being co-trustees and the presence of all trustees before the Court being necessary to determine the appeal by the surviving trustee and the questions arising between the trustees and the respondents oestui que trust, we ordered the addition of the legal representative of the deceased defendant 1 as a co-respondent.

2. The suit though originally brought by two plaintiffs was afterwards continued as a representative one on behalf of all creditors of defendants 5 to 8 for whose benefit they executed a trust deed Ex.1 dated 19th August 1923 of all their properties mentioned in the Schedules attached thereto constituting defendants 1 to 4 and another, since deceased, trustees to sell and distribute the proceeds rateably among their creditors mentioned in Schedule A thereto. The plaintiffs (respondents 1 and 2) charged the trustees with several breaches of trust, passive and active, such as

















Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top