The main legal point established in the judgment is that the act of the majority of trustees cannot bind the minority or the trust estate, and the application of estoppel is dependent on the circumstances of payment of rent and the legal effect of a fresh demise.

Venkataramana Rao, J.

1. This second appeal arises out of a suit in ejectment to recover possession of the suit land with arrears of rent and future profits from defendant 1 who was in occupation thereof. Defendants 2 to 5 were impleaded in the suit as assignees of defendant 1. The suit property admittedly belonged to a devaswom known as Puthankottan Devaswam. The uraima right was held, according to the findings of both the lower Courts, by four uralans who are the karnavans for the time being of four different tarwads, namely Neelangapurath, Edavan Putta-lath, Erambala and Thiyancheri Kaloth. Defendant 1 occupied the land under a marupat dated 24th June 1912, Ex. A, granted by the uralans Neelangapurath Appa alias Chidan Nambiar and Edavan Puthalath Krishnan Nambiar, the then karnavans of their respective tarwads. It was to run for a period of 12 years and at the end of the term, defendant 1 undertook to surrender possession on payment to him of the kuzhikur value. Four years thereafter the same two uralans executed a kanom kuzhikanom demise in favour of the plaintiff under a deed dated 5th July 1916, Ex. B, for a period of 16 years from the said date with power to recover the rent due from defendant 1 in acoordance with the terms of the marupat and also possession of the land at the end of the term. Subsequent to this deed the plaintiff was receiving rent from defendant 1 until 1928. After the expiry of the term fixed in the marupat, the plaintiff demanded possession from defendant 1 and he having declined to do so gave him notice to quit and brought the present suit for possession and profits, past and present.

2. The main defence of defendant 1 was that the kanom deed was invalid and conferred no title on the plaintiff as it was executed only by two uralans without reference to the other uralans and giving them an opportunity of consulting them. He also pleaded non-joinder of the uralans. To satisfy this objection as to non-joinder, Neelangapurath Koman Nambiar and Edavan Puthalath Kunhakutti Nambiar, defendants 6 and 7, were impleaded as party defendants as the then karnavans of their respective tarwads, the previous karnavans and parties to both Exs. A and B having died in the meanwhile. They contended that the kanom demise in favour of the plaintiff was invalid and not binding on the devaswom and further pleaded that it was not executed for a valid necessity of the devaswom and the plaintiff had no right to recover possession of the devaswom property from defendant 1. Both the lower Courts have non-suited the plaintiff on the ground that the plaintiffs title was defective in that the deed in his favour was not executed for or by all the uralans of the devaswom and further that it was not executed for a valid necessity, and also negatived the plea of estoppel raised on behalf of the plaintiff which was sought to be invoked against defendant 1 by reason of the payment of rent by him during the currency of the lease.

3. Two questions have been argued by Mr. Nambiar in this second appeal on behalf of the plaintiff: (i) The kanom demise in favour of the plaintiff is valid though it was executed by two uralans because it was subsequently assented to by the Karnavan of Erambala tarwad in 1928 and it does not appear that Thiyancheri Keloth tarwad appeared to have taken part in the management; (ii) Defendant 1 himself having obtained the lease from the two uralans from whom the plaintiff obtained the kanom and subsequently paid rent to him without any protest, is estopped from disputing his title and is bound to surrender possession to him.

4. In regard to the right of trusteeship of the devaswom, it is not open to Mr. Nambiar in second appeal to canvass the finding of fact arrived at by both the lower Courts that it is vested in four uralans being the karnavans for the time being for the four different tarwads already referred to. So this case must be dealt with on the footing that there are four uralans for the devaswom. I