MAHARAJ BAHADUR SINGH Vs. TAJ BAHADUR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff and the defendant are co-trustees under a certain trust which is for the benefit of certain religious objects and also certain Jains. The plaintiff is the son of the defendant and he alleges that the defendant kept the trust properties under his own control. He also alleges that he is treating the properties as If they were his own, that he keeps no separate accounts, that he is not paying revenue and 6esses, is letting the trust properties get into disrepair, is not spending the money as the trust document directs, and not carrying out the objects of the trust. He also alleges that the defendant declines to let him take any part in the management or to furnish him with any information with regard to the affairs of the trust. He is claiming an account of the dealings of the defendant with the trust on the basis of wilful default and an injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the plaintiff's right to take part in the management and, if necessary a receiver.

(2.) The defendant denies these allegations and alleges that the suit is vexatious and is not maintainable. The defendant attempted a short cut by moving a demurer before Sen J. alleging that the suit was not maintainable and also that the plaintiff was not entitled to inspection of certain documents as had been ordered. Those documents are accounts of the trust properties. Sen J. dismissed the demurer and, moreover, made an order that the plaintiff should have inspection of the documents. This inspection has been given.

(3.) We are only concerned with the question whether the dismissal of the plea of demurer was correct. In my opinion, the decision of the learned Judge is correct. If, as is alleged, the defendant has the trust properties entirely under his control then he is not acting properly as a trustee. They should be under the joint control of both trustees. If he refuses to allow the plaintiff to have access to the accounts and refuses to give him knowledge of the affairs of the trust properties he is not enabling the plaintiff to act as a trustee. Those are matters which must be determined in the suit. In my opinion, the defendant's demurer was not substantiated and the decision of the learned Judge was correct. As regards the plea of the defendant that the plaintiff has disentitled himself to ask for a relief because of a relinquishment of his trusteeship since the commencement of this suit, the matter is left open to the parties to deal with in such manner as they think fit at the trial of the suit. I am of the opinion that this appeal should be dismissed with costs. Panckridge, J.