LexCHAVALIER I.I. IYYAPPAN & ANOTHER versus THE DHARMODAYAM COMPANY
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
1 s.c.R.
SUPREME OOURT REPORTS
85
paying all the costs incurred by the respondent up·
to date irrespective of the result of the suit.
We therefore allow the appeal and remand the
case to the trial· court for considering only the
question of limitation on the basis of the Displ~ced
Persons (Institution of Suit"s) Act, (No. XLVII of
1948) as amended by the Displaced Persons (Insti-
tution of suits an~ legal proceedings) Amendment
Act (No. LXVIII of 1950)" after giving· parties a
chance to laa.d evidence in this connection, if neces-
sary. If the ·court comes to the conclusion that the
suit is within time on the basis of these two Acts, a.
decree for the amount claimed minus the costs
incurred upto ..this date by the respondent will be
passed in favour of the appellant. If on the other
hand the court comes to tho conclusion tha.t·the suit
is not within limitation even under these two acts
the suit will be finally dismissed. Costs incurred
hereinafter will be in the discretion of the court.
Appeal allowed .
. :: I \VALIER L J. IYYAPP,AN & ANOTHER
v.
THE DHARMODA.YAM COMPANY
(J. L. KAPUR; K. C. DAs GUPTA and
RAGHUBAR DAYAL, JJ.,
O~mfKI.ny-Di,.eetor a truBtee and in a fiduciary pos"ion-
'frwt if could bt. created on anothera hand-Ucen_se-()f imtJo.
('..a/)le where there ll4!J been change of purpose -In-iian Basements.
Act 1882 (5 of1882), ~~. 60 (b), 62(/ ).
·
The t«!$pondent, a Company with charitable objects .
owned certain Jands and the appellant who was the Chairman
of the Board of Directors, was asked to construct a building on
the ~aid .land. It was !lubsequently found that the cost would
be more . than the estimated am.ount, which probably the
Company was not prepared to spend.. At t~t stage the
J96Z
Boottm'141
v.
Union D} India
Wanchoo J.
1162
1962
----
Cllat1Nlt.r I. /,
lytJ~
v.
Tf!, Dbnm•y1111
c., .. ,
86
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1963]
appellant made an offer that he would finish the construction
of the building at his own cost and hand it over to the Com-
pany as trust property of which rhe Directors of the Company
would be the trustees and the Company will manage the
affairs in accordance with the conditions laid down in his
off(r. The offer was accepted, but for some reason or other
certain members of the Company were not prepared to stick
to the original arrangement and some of the memben filed a
suit and obtained an injunction against the appellant and the
company not to execute the trust deed as proposed by the
appellant. Thereafter the appellant resigned from Chairman·
ship and also ceased to be a Director, two days before his resig-
nation the appellant registered a trust deed and made himself
the first trustee with powers to appoirrt other trustees. The
trust deed inter alia, recited that a rent of Rs. 88/- per annum
was to be paid t• the Company for the compound where the
building had been erected.
Thus the appeJJant created a
trust by which the trust b(came a tenant of the respondent
Company without any transfer from the Company to the
trust. The respondent Company called upon the appel1ant to
hand over the building :o the Company and filed a suit for
possession of properties, damages and mesne profit.
The respondent Company's case was that the appellant
had wilfully contravened· the terms of his offer, and the right
of the appellant therefore was only to recover the money from
the Company to the extent to which he may be entitled in
equity and the trust deed was inoperative.
The defence of the appellant inter alia was that the
respondent company was estop~d from claiming the building
after having accepted the aforesaid offer pursuant to which
the appellant had invested a large sum of money in construct··
in~ the building; and that as the offer of the trusteeship of
the property in dispute made by the appellant and accepted
by the Board of Directors had afterwards been cancelled as a
result of the resolution pauC(fby the general body of members,
the appelhLnt could not ~onstitute the respondent. company as
trustee and therefore he was entitled to implement his 'original
intention by executing the deed of trust. In the Supreme
Court, the appellant relied on the plea that he had been
granted a license and acting upon the license he had executed
a work of permanent character and incu~ed expenses in the
execution thereof and therefore under s. 60(b) of the Indian
Easements Act, t882, the license was irrevocable.
Hild,Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.