APPANNA PORICHA Vs. NARASINGA PORICHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I have had the advantage of persuing the judgment which my learned brother Oldfield is about to pronounce. I agree with the views expressed therein and with the negative answer proposed by him to be given to the question referred to us, and I should not feel called upon to add anything, but for the judgment in Swaminatha Pillai V/s. Sundaresa Pillai 29 M.L.T. 267 to which I was a party, which has been relied on by the learned vakil for appellant as supporting his contention.

(2.) The case is, of course, distinguishable from the one with which we are concerned. This is a case between co-trustees that was a case in which a subordinate trustee was sued by a general trustee, who, as representing the general trust, was really a beneficiary under the subordinate "trust, and was seeking, as such, to enforce fulfilment of the latter.

(3.) It was from this joint of view and in reference to a suit of that character that the last paragraph of the judgment in that case was written: and was so worded as to suggest a more general application than I think we had in our minds. The argument addressed to us (and rejected) was apparently that every suit by a trustee no matter of what nature or against whom directed - was exempted from the provisions of Section 92. This was also, I think, the proposition placed before the Bench in Subramania Pillai V/s. Krishnaswami Somayajiar I.L.R. 42 M. 668 and dealt with by Abdur Rahim J. in the last pargraph of his judgment.