Trust deed executed by father as trustee held valid.

1. First defendant died after the judgment of the lower appellate court. Legal representatives of deceased first defendant in O.S.No.352 of 1973, on the file of III Additional Sub Court, Madurai, are the appellants.

2. Parties herein will be referred according to their rank in the suit.

3. Facts of the case may be summarised thus:

Late Venkatavaradha Iyengar, a leading lawyer of Madurai Bar, had two sons by name Parthasarathy Iyengar and Rajagopala Iyengar. Besides the sons, he had three daughters by name Renganayaki, Rajamani and Lakshmi Bai Ammal (first defendant in the suit). Under Exs.A-1 and A-2, late Venkatavaradha Iyengar had made certain arrangements for his grandchildren through his two elder daughters. He wanted to make similar provision to the first defendant. The arrangement which he made for the grandchildren through the daughters was by taking two documents executed by the daughters in the nature of a declaration of trust. On 29.11.1929, his elder daughters executed a declaration of trust in respect of the amount set apart by him for the benefit of those daughters and their children. He himself kept custody of the amounts and was improving them as Trustee. The elder daughters are no more and their children are in possession and enjoyment of the property which were purchased subsequently with the funds set apart by late Venkatavaradha Iyengar. In a similar way, he also set apart certain amounts to the first defendant and her children. Out of the sums set apart for the appellant, Venkatavaradha Iyengar negotiated for the purchase of certain lands in Thamaraipatti Village for a sum of Rs. 12,300 and paid an advance of Rs.3,000 to the vendpr, But. before the transaction could be completed, he died. As per the intentions of the deceased, first defendant executed a deed of Declaration of Trust, evidenced by Ex.A-3, dated 25.5.1936. It provided that her mother should be the Trustee in respect of a sum of Rs. 15,000 and the first defendant must get interests or income from the properties which are likely to be purchased from the amount earmarked. Thereafter, under Ex.B-2, dated 29.6.1936, the sale deed was also executed which was already negotiated by her father and another property was also purchased in the name of the first defendant. As per the declaration of the trust, the mother continued to be the trustee for a long time. But, due to her old age, she could not continue the same, and the same was managed by the first defendant. The mother also surrendered possessions of the property to the first defendant. First defendant did not beget any children, and her husband also died in the year 1965. On the basis of the Declaration of Trust, she had only a right of enjoyment without power of alienation. While so, first defendant executed a cancellation deed on 8.7.1970, cancelling the declaration of trust. According to the plaintiff the said document is invalid under law, and the reasons given in that document for cancelling the Trust Deed are all false, imaginary and untenable. The statements in Ex.A-3 declaration of trust are all true. As per the provisions of the declaration of trust, her brothers children who are plaintiffs in this case, will be entitled to the property.

4. In the written statement filed by deceased first defendant, it was stated that the declaration of trust deed happened to be executed due to misrepresentation, fraud, coercion, etc. and the same was got executed at a time when she was in a depressed state of mind. Her father Venkatavaradha Iyengar had died only a few days before that, and she was completely upset, and taking advantage of her mental condition at that time, she signed certain documents without knowing the contents, It is also said that she was not in a position to understand and appreciate anything at that time, and under such circumstances, when her two brothers brought the Trust Deed for signature, she simply signed it without understanding the consequences. In fact, she had