The court held that the trustees did not commit fraud by not disclosing the applicants' offer, as the offer was not bona fide. The court also found that there was no evidence of collusion between the trustees and the purchasers. Therefore, the court dismissed the applicants' application to set aside the sale.

SRINIVASAN, J.

1. These two appeals are against the order of a learned single judge of this Court dt. 2nd February, 1995 in Application No. 801 of 1991. The earlier appeal is by the first respondent in the said application and the later appeal is by respondents 10 to 15 therein. The appeals were heard together as they raise common questions. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred in this judgment according to their rank in the application.

2. The first respondent trust was created by one Ambasankar Joshi by a deed of Declaration of Trust on 15th January, 1934. Three items of immovable properties comprising building and land were set apart for carrying out the objects of the trust. The purpose of the Trust is to help poor relations of the author of the Trust and for some charitable and pious purposes. The author of the Trust has laid down the manner in which the income from the trust properties should be utilised for the purpose of the trust . One fourth of the net income shall be spent for the purpose of rice and other grains or vegetables if convenient for giving alms to the poor of whatever class or creed who may appear and beg at premises No. 14, Samudra Mudali Street, Park town, Madras, one of the trust properties and if the amout is sufficient, to feed also poor Brahmins on some important days and occasions as the Trustee thinks fit. Another 1/4th of the net income shall be spent of “Gosamrakshana”. The remaining income shall be devot ed for the relations of the author as specified therein. If there is any balance after meeting the special allowances to the male and female relations of the author of the Trust, it shall be reserved as a Reserve Charity Fund to meet any special or unexpected or unforeseen urgency and to meet any new or special charity as the Trustee thinks fit. In the first instance, the author of the Trust himself became fee sole Trustee. On his death, his descendants entered into an agreement on May 1, 1957 by which they agreed to reconstitute the management of the trust for the purpose of proper functioning thereof. Subsequent to the agreement, the trust was functioning as per the terms of the agreement without any dispute, claim or contest by any person. The properties of the trust became old and dilapidated. The income therefrom was found to be in sufficient to carry out the object of the trust. The trustees felt a difficulty in continuing the trust for want of sufficient funds and thought of disposing of the properties and investing the proceeds in such securities as would yield better income. As there was no express power of alienation under the Declaration of Trust, the Trustees filed Originating Summons under Order 13, Rule 1(e) and (g) of the Original Side Rules in this Court, which was taken on file as C.S. No. 530/79. The prayer was for modification of the terms of the Trust so as to empower the trustees to sell, convert, call in or otherwise realise the properties of the trust and also raise money by way of loan, mortgage, charge or pledge. There was also a prayer for separation of charitable and noncharitable parts of the Trust fund and separate management of the two portions.

3. During the pendency of the said proceedings, the Court appointed an Advocate-Commissioner to inspect the properties and ascertain the condition and the value thereof. The Commissioner submitted a report dated 2nd March, 1983 setting out the approximate value of all the three properties. In the present proceedings we are concerned only with the house and ground in No. 429, Mint Street, which now bears New Door No. 162. The value of the said property was estimated by the Commissioner at Rs. 2,00,000/- as on that date. In paragraph 3 of his report, he has described the condition of the building. The relevant portion reads as follows:—

“It is significant to note that this building is very much damaged by the even and heavy fire used for cooking purposes. It is also to be noted that a portion of