KRISHNAN PANDALAI, CURGENVEN, PANDALAI
Tirunarayana Pillai – Appellant
Versus
P. R. Y. Manickavachagam Chettiar – Respondent
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
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.