The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of respecting the rights of existing trustees and the limitations on the power of the Revenue Board to transfer the management of a trust without dismissing the trustee then in office.

1. In this ease the Taluq Board of Saidapet sues for recovery of possession from the defendants of three items of property, alleging that they are trust properties, the first item being a Chattram, and items Nos. 2 and 3 being two houses endowed for the use of the Chattram. One Kanagammal by her will, dated the 5th February 1885, directed that twelve Brahmins should be fed on every Dwadasi day in the Chattram building, item No. 1, by means of the proceeds of the properties, items Nos. 2 and 3, She also directed that a sum of one rupee should be spent on every Friday for performing Archana to the Goddess in a temple, The balance after deducting the expenses of feeding was to be devoted under the provisions of the will to defray the expenses of giving Neermoru or buttermilk, Tambulam or betel and nut, fans and sugar to people attending the festival of Moluvaddee Servai in Tiruvettiyur. She appointed three executors to her will, but directed that Paupiah Chetti, who was the first defendant in the suit and with whom she was living either as wife or as a concubine, should conduct the charities, the other executors being given a right of interference in case Paupiah should be guilty of mismanagement. The second and third defendants in the suit are persons to whom Paupiah alienated by mortgage and sale the two houses, items Nos. 2 and 3, in August and June 1889. The plaint alleges that Paupiah, although he accepted the trust under the will and "discharged it faithfully for some years," afterwards grossly abused his trust and alienated, the properties as mentioned above, and that he was prosecuted for criminal breach of trust and convicted of that offence, In August 1899 he executed a power of attorney in favour of the second defendant. Although in the power of attorney he treated item No. 1, choultry, as his own property, he directed the second defendant to conduct the charity therein. Complaints of misappropriation having been made by some members of the public in 1900 to the Collector of Chingleput, an inquiry was held and it resulted in the Board of Revenue resolving to take proceedings for the proper management of the trust. The plaint alleges: (paragraph No. 12) that "the Board of Revenue, with the written "consent of the Governor in Council, transferred to the Taluq "Board the management of item No. 1 together with its endowments with power to file suits against the alienees of the trust properties and recover possession of the same," Paupiah, the first defendant, died after the institution of the suit and the fourth and fifth defendants were brought on the record in the suit as his legal representatives. They did not however put in an appearance and the suit was tried exparte as against them. The second and third defendants resisted the suit and raised various pleas. They contended that there was no real trust at all, and that the properties really belonged to Paupiah and not to Kanagamtnal, and that they were purchased in her name in order to screen them from Paupiahs creditors. They also contended that they were bond fids purchasers for valuable consideration from Paupiah without notice of the trust, and that the alienations could not therefore be disputed by the plaintiff. They denied that the Board of Revenue had any right to make over the management of the charity to the Taluq Board. And they contended further that the charities, if any, were of a private character and not public. It is unnecessary to refer to other pleas raised by them as we have not got to deal with them in this appeal.

2. The first issue framed in the case was: "Whether the plaintiff has any locus standi to maintain the suit?" The District Judge decided it in the affirmative. On the merits the District Judge held that Kanagammal was the owner of the properties and negatived the contention that the properties were purchased in her name to screen them from the creditors of Paupiah. Although the point was raised again before us at the hearing of th