Anantakrishna Aiyar, J.

1. In this case two questions have been referred to the decision of the Full Bench and, as it is admitted, that if our answer to the second question should be against the appellant, there is no necessity to answer the first question, we proceed to state such facts as are necessary to make our answer intelligible.

2. The plaintiff is the present Rajah of Kalahasthi and he instituted the original suit out of which this reference has arisen for a declaration that the mortgage deed, dated the 21st of September, 1912, executed by the Kalahasthi Rajah, whom we may call here Rajah No. 2, in favour of the 1st defendant is not binding upon the trust, for a declaration that the village in question Yerpedu is property appertaining to a trust in connection with a choultry-charity, and to recover possession of the property. The plea of the defendants was that in fact there was no trust at all, that the properties belonged to the Rajah of Kalahasthi in his personal capacity and that the mortgage was perfectly valid. The second question which has been referred to us is whether the defendants are entitled to set up the defence that they did in the present case, namely