The main legal point established in the judgment is that the alienation of charitable property was invalid, and once the terms of an agreement are definitively settled, the parties are bound by it. Additionally, the court clarified the applicability of specific performance and the inclusion of a minor defendant in the suit.

1. This is an appeal from the decree of the Subordinate Judge dismissing the suit without costs. The judgment of the Subordinate Judge which on the substantial issues of fact (the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 6th is in the plaintiffs favour, proceeds upon contain grounds of law upon which also the arguments in the hearing of the appeal turned. The judges findings on the facts were not questioned. It is found as a fact that by agreement between the three brothers a sale of certain properties by auction was effected and the plaintiff became the purchaser. The terms of the whole arrangement are set out in Exhibit E. This sale included among other things the huk right of Vachakarapatti Choultry, the lands attached to the Choultry and certain other lands the Kudivaram of which is vested in the family. As to these latter it is asserted on the defendants behalf that they also are part of the charity property. There has been no finding on the point.

2. The Vachakarapatti Choultry is one of several charities managed by the family to which the parties belong. It is admittedly a public charity. There is no direct evidence as to the conditions fixed by the founder for the management of the choultry and its property or for the devolution of the right of management. In the Inam statement made by the plaintiffs fattier Thittarappa, Chidambaranatha who is described as the latters great grandfather and manager of the charity, appears under the heading "name of the original holder." In another column it is said "the Inam was granted to my ancestors by the Carnatic Rajahs for the purpose of conducting charity in the choultry etc." Thittarappa, it appears, was one of three brothers wild having previously divided among themselves their family property, in 1871, proceeded to divide the family charities. It is recited in the deed of 26th May 1871 that it was at first settled to manage in common the charities attached to the family, but that they had since come to another arrangement with regard to the same. Under that arrangement the Choultry now in question fell to the share of the plaintiffs father. He died in July 1877 leaving 2 sons Alagappa and Sivarama Sundara the plaintiff and defendant No. 1 and a third, then a minor, now defendant No. 2. In the same year it was agreed between the two adult brothers, that although the hukdarship was common to three, it should be registered in the name of the eldest the defendant No. 1. This is all the evidence adduced with regard to the management of the Choultry and it is not likely that more would be forthcoming, in as much as it appears from the pedigree that the grand-father and great grand fattier of Thittarappa each left only-one son. Judging from the scanty materials available, we think it must be taken to have been the intention of the founder of the Choultry that the office of manager should be held in common by the family of the original holder. No other rule of succession can well be suggested. The fact that in 1871 a division of the charities then belonging to the family took place is by itself no ground for holding that any other rule than that above stated holds good with regard to this choultry. It was argued by the plaintiffs Vakil that although the office of superintending religious or charitable institutions cannot be alienated like ordinary property, it is competent to any one member of the family interested to renounce or waive his right in the matter, Manchuram v. Pranshankar (I. L R, 6 B, 298). Our attention was also called to the cases in which it has been held that one person may by force of the law of limitation lose his right to such an office and another may in the same manner acquire it. It is true that there is an apparent inconsistency in holding that by operation of law an alienation may be effected which cannot be effected by an act of the party. It may be suggested that the explanation lies in the fact that the law of limitation is a law of a general and positive character and that