The main legal point established in the judgment is that a beneficiary of a trust may be entitled to a charge upon the property purchased with the trust money if the trustee uses the trust funds for their own benefit.

Kumaraswami Sastri, J.

1. This is a suit by a minor plaintiff by his next friend against Defendants 1 to 8, who are alleged to be members of the firm Tawker & Sons, and the 9th defendant, the Official Assignee, who, it is alleged, represents the estate of the insolvent firm which became insolvent subsequent to the filing of the plaint, alleging that the firm of Tawker & Sons were trustees in respect of a sum of Rs. 10,000 deposited by the plaintiffs father with the firm in trust for plaintiff, that Tawker & Sons are now in insolvent circumstances and there was the danger of the money being lost; and, therefore, praying for the removal of the defendants from the trusteeship; for the appointment of a new trustee; and for directing the defendants to pay Rs. 10,000 with interest and for directing the Official Assignee to pay the same out of the assets of Defendants 1 to 8 in his hands.

2. The case of the plaintiff is that, in August 1919, the 1st defendant acted as mediator in a claim by the plaintiffs father against the late Nawab of Banganapalle and collected about Rs. 65,000 from the Nawab; that out of that sum a sum of Rs. 10,000 was deposited in trust with the firm of Tawker & Sons, the terms being that the defendants should invest the said sum of Rs. 10,000 at 9 per cent. in their firm or in any other firm as the defendants might deem fit, pay the interest and pay the amount of the trust to the plaintiff when he attained 21 years; that a letter was passed on the 5th October 1919 containing the terms of the trust already arranged and that on the 22nd October 1919 a receipt for Rs. 10,000 was granted by the defendants; that the defendants were paying interest at 9 per cent. up to the date of plaint, but failed to invest the trust money and committed a breach of trust, that the defendants are heavily involved and are unable to pay the creditors and that they are convening a meeting of the creditors for the purpose of liquidating their debts and that the plaintiff apprehends that some of the creditors may adjudicate the defendants in insolvency and that his moneys may be lost unless the plaintiffs interests are safeguarded.

3. Defendants 1 to 8, who constitute the firm of Tawker & Sons, filed a written statement admitting that they were trustees to the extent of Rs. 10,000, but stating that the terms are not completely set out in the plaint. They say that it was stated that the defendants should invest the moneys in their firm in the name of the plaintiff, that the plaintiff should not trouble the defendants any more about the said sum and that he should not be entitled to the moneys before he attained the age of 21 years and that the defendants have absolute discretion as to how to invest or use the moneys. They say that they have paid a sum of 2,560 towards the interest and that on the date of the plaint a sum of Rs. 535 was overpaid on account of interest, that they did nothing contrary to the terms of the trust and that the suit is premature as the plaintiff has not attained 21 years.

4. The 9th defendant, who is the Official Assignee filed a written statement putting the plaintiff to proof of the allegations in the plaint and the factum and the validity of the alleged trust, denying that the plaintiff is entitled to any preferential claim over the assets of Defendants 1 to 8, who are insolvents and that he is entitled only to rateable, distribution with the other creditors. Except as stated above he adopts the written statement of Defendants 1 to 8. The following issues were settled:

1. What were the terms of the trust?

2. Is the suit premature for the reasons alleged in paragraph 6 of the written statement?

3. Has the plaintiff received Rs. 535 in excess of the interest actually due?

4. Is the plaintiff entitled to remove the defendants from the trusteeship and for an order for the payment of Rs. 10,000?

5. To what relief, if any, are the parties entitled?

5. There can be little doubt that Defendants 1 to 8, who constituted