OFFICIAL TRUSTEE OF TAMIL NADU versus UDAVUMKARANKAL AND ORS.

Citation: [1993] 1 S.C.R. 380 · Decided: 29-01-1993 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: KULDIP SINGH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
OFFICIAL TRUSTEE OF TAMIL NADU 
v. 
UDA VUMKARANKAL AND ORS. 
JANUARY 29, 1993 
B 
(KULDIP SINGH AND P.B. SAWANT, JJ.] 
Official Trnstees Act, 1913 : 
Sections 15, 28-Powers and duties of Official Trnstee-Action taken 
C bona fide-Breach of trnst-Personal liability-Whether arises. 
D 
By a Court decree, schemes for administration of two estates belong-
ing to a couple were sanctioned. The subject matter of the present appeal 
is the property comprised in the estate of the wife. The said premises have 
been used as a marriage hall. 
The predecessor of the appellant made an application to the High 
Court for permission to incur an expenditure of Rs. 6 lakhs for converting 
the tiled roof into RCC roof as also for a modernisation plan involving 
about Rs. 17,500, so that the marriage hall could fetch higher income. The 
E High Court accorded permission for the plan and the expenditure in-
volved. Thereafter some correspondence took place with some Architects. 
But there was no further progress. In the mean time the present appellant 
took charge of the trust and he wrote to an Architect about the proposal 
and requested him to inspect and report about its feasibility. The Architect 
inspected the preinises and reported that the building was very old and in 
F 
a dilapidated condition. He recommended the demolition of the building 
and putting up of a new construction. The appellant requested the Ar-
chitect to submit his estimates, plan and other details. Just prior to these 
developments, the Deputy Official Receiver inspected the premises belong-
ing to both the trusts and submitted a report that the buildings belonging 
G to both the trusts be demolished and reconstruction of the Marriage Hall 
and construction of a shopping complex be taken up. 
The appellant paid the scrutiny and demolition fee to the Corpora-
tion as demanded by it and the building was demolished. The Architect 
sent his estimate of Rs. 9.60 Iakhs for the construction of the Marriage 
H 
Hall. The appellant filed an application before the High Court for its 
380 
OFFlCIAL TRUSTEE v. UDAVUMKARANKAL 
381 
permission to transfer a snm of Rs. 7 lakhs from the other Trost to enable A 
him to incur a total expenditure of Rs. 10 lakhs and for ratification of the 
.action taken by him. The hereditary trustees and the residual beneficiaries 
intervened and opposed the application. The matter was heard by a Single 
Judge and he held that the appellant had proceeded to demolish the 
marriage ball without getting specific orders of the Court and in undue B 
haste, in an irresponsible manner and to the detriment of the trust. The 
Single Judge rejected the application and directed the appellant to con· 
stroct the marriage ball within Rs. 6 lakhs sanctioned earlier. He further 
directed that expenditure in excess of Rs. 6 lakhs should be borne by the 
appellant himself. Being aggrieved by the said order, the appellant-offi· 
cial trustee filed an appeal which was dismissed by the Division Bench. C 
Against this, the official trustee preferred the present appeal by special 
leave. 
Allowing the appeal, this Court, 
D 
HELD : 1. It is evident from record that out of the three Architects 
who responded to the invitation of the predecessor of the appellant for 
replacement of the tiled-roof by R.C.C. slab, one architect did not even 
care to visit the site and examine whether the old structure could bear the 
weight of the R.C.C. slab. As regards the second architect, he did not refer 
to the fact whether the old structure was capable of bearing the weight of E 
the R.C.C. slab. He merely stated that he bad inspected the premises and 
then proceeded to indicate his charges for preparing the plan etc. It may, 
however, be presumed that since he had not referred to the condition of 
the building, he was of the opinion that the old building could bear the 
weight of the R.C.C. slab. It is only the third architect, who stated that it F 
was worth demolishing the old building and constructing a new one in its 
place as per the Development Control Rules of the Madras Municipal 
Corporation. This was the state of affairs on the files of the Official 
Trustee when the appellant took charge. In the circumstances, there was 
nothing unnatural on the part of the appellant to have specifically ad-
dressed a letter to one more architect, pointing out to him, that it was G 
proposed to convert the existing tiled-roof into RCC-roof, and requesting 
him to inspect the premises

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.