THIRUVENGADASWAMI IYENGAR Vs. VEERA PILLAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff in this case is content with a personal decree against the 1st defendant and has not chosen to come to this Court in revision. THE finding of the lower Court is that there was no necessity for borrowing the money although the amount of the note was spent for the benefit of the temple. It has not been shown before me that the necessity was so urgent as to compel the 1st defendant to borrow even without the consent of his co-trustee from a third party. I express no opinion as to whether the 1st defendant will not be entitled to recover this money from the trust funds as admittedly the money has been spent for the benefit of the temple. I think the conclusion come to by the Subordinate Judge is right. THE 1st defendant who executed the promissory note without consulting his colleague has rendered himself personally liable. On that simple ground I think that the decree of the Subordinate Judge should be upheld.

(2.) THE petition is dismissed with costs.