- (1.) This is an appeal by defendants 47 and 48 and the principal question which is raised for our decision in the appeal is whether the properties in suit are the subject-matter of public charitable trust or are merely burdened or charged with the obligation in favour of the specified charities. The suit from which this appeal arises was filed with the sanction of the Collector under S. 92 of the Civil P.C. and the plaintiffs alleged that the properties in suit were the subject- matter of a public charitable trust and that a scheme may be framed for the administration of the said trust. The present appellants who are in possession of a substantial portion of the properties in suit as alienees have resisted this claim. They conceded that the properties in their hands were subject to the charge in favour of the charities but they denied that the said properties were the subject matter of a charitable trust. Several other pleas were made by the parties but the principal question in dispute between them was in regard to the character of the properties in suit. Both the learned trial Judge and the High Court of Madras have upheld the plaintiffs' plea. It has been declared that the properties in question are trust properties and a direction has been issued that a scheme of management should be frame in respect of the trust with a view to carry out the charitable intentions of the settlor. It is this decree which is challenged before us by Mr. Alladi Kuppuswami on behalf of defendants 47 and 48 and his argument is that the view taken by the Court below about the character of the properties is based upon a misconstruction of the decree in question.
(2.) In the plaint, it was alleged that one Purushottam had been earning and purchasing large properties and endowing and dedicating them for public charitable purpose since 1896. In about 1919 Purushottam who had then become old wanted to place the charities which he had been till then personally administering on a permanent and enduring basis. That is why he executed and registered a deed of trust on 17th March 1919. By this document, a trust in respect of his properties was created and three trustee were appointed to administer the trust. Purushottam himself was one of these trustees and two advocates, Mr. Reballa Subbarayudu and Mr. C. Viswanadha Rao, were his co-trustees. It would appear that Purushottam's son Ramakrishnayya did not approve of this arrangement and he began to obstruct the administration of the trust. As a result of this obstructive attitude adopted by Ramakrishnayya, two suits had to be filed by the trustees against Ramakrishnayya and his associates who interfered with the management of the trust. These two suits were O. S. No. 599 of 1919 and O. S. No. 68 of 1920 on the files of the District Munsiff's Court, Kavali, and the District Court, Nellore, respectively. They were subsequently transferred to the Sub- Court, Nellore, and numbered as O. S. No. 39 of 1921 and O. S. No. 67 of 1921 in the said Court. Pending the hearing of these suits the two advocates trustees withdrew from the suits leaving the conduct of the suits solely in charge of Purushottam. Ultimately the two suits ended in a compromise. According to the plaint in the present suit out of which this appeal has arisen, this compromise decree was fraudulent and collusive the object of the parties being to efface the character of the trust properties completely and to create individual rights in Purushottam, his son Ramakrishnayya and the other defendants who claimed to be alienees from Ramakrishnayya. The plaint even alleged that, in persuading the Court to pass the said compromise decree, the parties effectively played fraud on the Court and the trust. Since the compromise was thus null and void, it cannot affect the original trust created by Purushottam in 1919. That is why the plaint alleged that the properties mentioned in Sch. A which were covered by the original deed of trust of 1919 were trust properties and asked in substance for the framing of a scheme for the administration of the said trust.
(3.) At the date of this suit both Purushottam and his son Ramakrishnayya were dead. Ramakishnayya's son Ramalingeswara Rao was therefore impleaded as defendant 1. A large number of defendants had to be impleaded to the suit because the properties had been alienated both by Ramakrishnayya and Ramalingeswara Rao to several purchasers. Defendants 47 and 48 were two of such purchasers. On 7th June 1942, an agreement of sale by defendant 1 in favour of defendants 47 and 48 was executed and a decree for specific performance was ultimately passed in their favour. It was then that defendants 47 and 48 were impleaded to this suit on 3rd January 1944. These defendants substantially adopted the defence raised by the other contesting defendants who were already on the record. The principal contention raised on their behalf was that the compromise decree was not fraudulent or collusive that it represented a fair and bona fide family settlement between Purushottam and his son Ramakrishnayya and as such the decree was binding against Purushottam and the trust alleged to have been created by him in 1919. ;