Case: L. Janakirama Iyer Vs. P.M. Nilakanta Iyer

really concerned with the narration of the relevant facts and it purports to summarise the effect of the decree and nothing more. Besides, the use of the words "mesne profits" in the context is obviously the result of inadvertence because the decree of the trial court had in the relevant clause used the words "net profits" and not "mesne profits". Thus, there can be no doubt that the decretal order drawn in the High Court through error introduced the words "mesne profits" and such an error could be corrected by the High Court under Ss. 151 and 152 of the Code even though the appeals may have been admitted in this Court before the date of correction.24. But apart from this technical argument about the jurisdiction of the High Court to make the correction the point in question has been raised on the merits before us; and it is urged that the plaintiffs are not entitled to anything more than three years profits from the respective defendants. The argument is that Art. 109 of the Limitation Act applies to such a claim and the claim is confined to three years under that article. Article 109 deals with claims for profits of immovable property belonging to the plaintiffs which have been wrongfully received by the defendants and it prescribes three years period of limitation commencing from the time when the profits were received. Normally there is no doubt that a successful-plaintiff would be entitled to mesne profits for three years and not more; but in the present case we are dealing with a claim made by the plaintiffs on behalf of the trust and the decision in their favour has rendered it necessary to adjust equities between the trust and the respective alienees alienations in whose favour have been set aside as invalid.We have already seen that having set aside the alienations in favour of defendant 14 and others the Courts below have directed that the alienees should get the amounts due to them from the trust. It has also been directed that interest at the rate awarded by the decree should be paid to them on the said amounts. This cleary is an equitable relief granted to the alienees. Having held that the alienees should interest on the amounts due to them from the dates of their respective mortgages or sales the Courts in fairness have directed that the alienees in turn should give an account of the net profits of the properties which were wrongfully in their possession commencing with the date when they got possession. If the technical argument based on Art. 109 is upheld as a matter of law there would be no scope for giving equitable relief to the alienees at all and they may be driven to file fresh actions to recover their claims and such actions would have to face the possible plea of limitation. That is why the High Court has observed that the question about the net profits awardable to the trust and interest awardable to the alienees, involves considerations of equitable adjustment, and it is by way of an equitable adjustment that the relevant directions have been issued by the decree.It is not disputed that the Court had jurisdiction to make such an equitable adjustment. Indeed, in many cases of this type Courts have made equitable adjustments between rival parties (Vide: Satgur Prasad v. Har Narain Das, 59 Ind 147 : (AIR 1932 PC 89 ) : Raja Rai Bhagwat Dayal Singh v. Debi Dayal Sahu, 35 Ind App 48 at P. 59. The principal and interest ordered to be paid to defendant 14 and the profits ordered to be paid by him are thus integral parts of an equitable adjustment between the plaintiffs and defendant 14.25. It is also urged on behalf of defendant 14 that the High Court was in error in modifying the decree passed by the trial Court by changing 10 1/2% interest at compound rate to 10 1/2% simple interest in favour of defendant 14. The contention is that under the mortgage executed in favour of defendant 14 (Ex. B-95) the contract rate was 10 1/2% compound interest and as mortgagee defendant 14 was entitled to that rate. In support of this argument reliance is placed on the decision of the Privy Council in Jagannath Prasad Singh v. Surajmal Jalal, 54 Ind App 1 : (AIR 1927 PC 1 ).In that case the Privy Council has held that on a preliminary decree for foreclosure or sale under O. XXXIV, Rr. 2, 4 of the Code, a mortgagee is entitled to interest at the rate and with the rests stipulated in the mortgage, down to the rate fixed for redemption by the decree. This position cannot be disputed; but the answer to the plea is that the present decree is not passed in an action instituted by defendant 14 as a mortgagee. The present decree is passed while adjusting equities between defendant 14 the alienation in whose favour is set aside; his rights as mortgagee are equitably recognised and thereby further litigation is avoided. Since the decree by which defendant 14 is allowed to recover his mortgage dues has been passed for giving him equitable relief it was open to the High Court to consider whether compound interest should be paid to him or not. As the High Court has pointed out, while adjusting equities between the parties the mortgage does not become revived as such but the relief granted to the 14th defendant is based on equity and justice, and so the High Court thought that the interests of justice would be met if he is paid out of the sale proceeds the principal amount of the mortgage with simple interest at 10 1/2%. We have carefully considered the contention raised by the learned Attorney-General in this behalf but we do not think that we would be justified in interfering with the modification made by the High Court in the decree passed by the trial court.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]The plaint sets out all the material facts which constitute the background to the present litigation, makes material allegations in respect of all the alienations impeached in the plaint, and by paragraph 35 it prays, inter alia, that schedules I toand VIII should be adjudged as still impressed as trust imposed on them by the deed of August 26, 1936 and direct theirThat is cl. (c) of paragraph 35. By cl. (d) it is prayed that the Court should order the administration of the trust by removing defendant 7 if need be and appointing an administrator or officer of court (1) to realise the amounts mentioned in cl. (a), (2) to recover possession andthe properties referred to in paragraph (c), (3) to distribute the proceeds rateably amongst the unsecured creditors and perform such other acts and functions as may be necessary to effectuate the trust inis not a claim that possession should be delivered to the administrator in the present suit.It may be, conceded that if read by itself alone cl. (d) may be capable of the construction which the learnedseeks to put on it; but in construing the plaint we must have regard to all the relevant allegations made in the plaint and must look at the substance of the matter and not its form. It is significant that the plaintiffs have valued the suit for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction at Rs. 23,745 and this valuation includes several items in respect of different properties valued under S. 7(5) of the Court Fees Act. The valuation made in respect of the different items of properties under S. 7(5) is obviously and clearly valuation made on the footing that a claim for possession is made. In fact the plaint specifically avers that the plaintiffs valued the suit for possession covered by reliefs C andunder S. 7(5) as indicated in the plaint. Thus there can be no doubt that the plaint has been valued on the basis that a claim for possession of the properties covered by the schedules is intended to be made. Besides, it is also significant that in regard to the claim made by the plaintiffs in respect of the transfer in favour of defendant 14 his sons defendants 18 to 24 have been joined specifically on the ground that since the plaintiffs claim possession of the said property the said defendants are necessary parties as it is found that they are in possession of the said properties. In other words, the joinder of defendants 18 to 24 to the present suit is based solely on the ground that a claim for possession is made in the plaint and defendants 18 to 24 being in possession are necessary parties to the suit. Therefore, in our opinion reading the plaint as a whole it would be unreasonable to construe cl., (d) in paragraph 35 in the manner suggested by the learnedThe prayer which the clause really purports to make is that an administrator should be appointed and that an order should be passed against the respective defendants asking them to deliver possession of the properties to the said administrator. If that be so the plaint cannot be construed as one on which a mere claim for declaration is made. It is a plaint in which a declaration is no doubt claimed but based on the said declaration or adjudication a further claim for possession to the administrator is also made. The result, therefore, is that the argument that the prayer made in the plaint attracts Art. 120 must beis not disputed by the learnedthat in regard to public charitable trusts the beneficiaries are entitled to sue for setting aside alienations of the trust properties improperly effected by the trustees, and to ask for the restoration of possession of the said trust properties to the trustees newly appointed. Indeed, there is ample judicial authority in support of thiswould thus be seen that these observations mean no more than this that the beneficiary under a private trust cannot claim to recover possession of the property from the trustee so as to attract the application of Art. 144 of the Limitation Act. He can make the claim for a declaration which would be governed by Art. 120. It is quite clear that the question as to whether in proper case the beneficiary cannot apply for the removal of the trustee, for the appointment of a new trustee, and for the delivery to the new trustee of the property improperly alienated by the previous trustee did not fall to be considered in that case. All that the Privy Council was called upon to consider was whether a beneficiary can bring a suit for possession against a trustee and whether such a suit can be governed by Art. 144, and in holding that such a suit cannot be brought by the beneficiary the Privy Council pointed out that Art. 144 postulates a suit by the owner and a beneficiary is not an owner under the Indian Law of Trusts. We are, therefore, satisfied that the observations on which reliance is placed by the learnedcannot be said to amount to a decision that in no case can a beneficiary claim that the trustee appointed under the trust should be removed and a new trustee should be appointed and the trust properties improperly alienated by the previous trustee should be ordered to be delivered into the possession of the new trustee. Section 63 no doubt provides for the two remedies which are available to the beneficiary, but, in our opinion, S. 63 cannot be treated as exhaustive on the subject and so it cannot be urged that a claim for constructive possession like the one made in the present suit is prohibited by S. 63, Prima facie S. 10 of the Limitation Act seems to contemplate an action by a beneficiary under a trust to which S. 10 applies and provides that in such an action the beneficiary may follow the property and ask for a proper order as to the delivery of the said property to the new trustee. If that be so, the provisions of S. 10 would suggest that the remedies prescribed by S. 63 are not exhaustive.15. Besides, it would be relevant to observe that if S. 63 is held to be exhaustive as to the remedies available to a beneficiary it would lead to very anomalousa trustee improperly alienates the trust property the only remedy which would on that view be available to the beneficiary is to obtain aand literally construed S. 63 does not refer to the remedy for the appointment of a new trustee either, so that on a literal construction of S. 63 even that remedy may be outside its purview; but assuming that a beneficiary can ask for a declaration that the property alienated is comprised in the trust and also add a prayer for the appointment of a new trustee that only means that after the new trustee is appointed he will have to sue the alienee for possession and very often this suit would be defeated by the alienees plea of adverse possession. It is hardly necessary to emphasise that when the beneficiary sues for a declaration as required by S. 63 and the alienee resists the said suit the adverse possession of the alienee is emphatically, brought out and the pendency of the beneficiarys suit would not affect that position so that on the view that S. 63 is exhaustive more often than not the beneficiarys claim would in substance be defeated by the adverse possession of thewould like to add that if for bringing back to the trust the properties improperly alienated by the trustees two suits are required to be filed we apprehend thatthe second suit by the newly appointed trustee for obtaining possession of the properties would almost always be too late, and so S. 63 cannot be read as exhaustively dealing with all the remedies available to the beneficiary.We must, therefore, reject the argument that the suit for possession in the form in which the prayer has been made by the plaintiffs isS. 11 is thus inapplicable it would not be permissible to rely upon the general doctrine of res judicata. We are dealing with a suit and the only ground on which res judicata can be urged against such a suit can be the provisions of S. 11 and no other. In our opinion, therefore, there is no substance in the ground that the present suit is barred by reshave already seen that three trustees were appointed under the trust deed executed by defendants 1 to 6 and two of the impugned sale deeds have been executed by only two out of the said three trustees. The Courts below have held that two out of the three trustees could not convey a valid title and so on that ground alone the two transfers are invalid.Section 48 of the Trusts Act provides that when there are more trustees than one, all must join in the execution of the trust, except where the instrument of trust otherwise provides. It is thus clear that all acts which the trustees intend to take for executing the trust must be taken by all of them acting together. Therefore, there can be no doubt that if the validity of the alienations effected by the trustees falls to be considered only in the light of S. 48 the fact that out of the three trustees only two have executed the sale deeds would by itself make the transactions invalid and would not convey title to the alienees. This position is not in doubt.As we have seen S. 48 contemplates that its provisions will not apply where the instrument of trust otherwise provides. In other words, if a trust deed under which more trustees than one are appointed expressly provides that the execution of the trust may be carried out not by all but by one or more, then of course the matter would be governed by the special provision of the trusthave carefully compared all the translations, and we feel no difficulty in holding that the translation supplied in the earlier litigation is somewhat inaccurate, whereas all the three translations made in the present proceedings substantially agree. Taking the translation supplied by the learnedit is clear that what this clause requires is that the three trustees shall act, and it provides that they shall act according to the decision which may be reached either unanimously or by majority. "You three," that is to say the three trustees, is the subject of the predicate "shall act"; and the words between the subject and the predicate indicate how the decision has been reached. Reading the clause as a whole it is difficult to accept the argument that this clause allows two of the three trustees to act without joining the third trustee in the actual action to be taken in the execution of the trust. It is not necessary under the clause that in the matter of executing the trust every decision must be unanimous. The clause recognises that in some matters decision may be by majority; but nevertheless it requires that once a decision is reached either unanimously or by majority, in giving effect to the decision and in taking any given action in the execution of the trust all the three must act. Thus read this clause conforms to the statutory provisions contained in S. 48 of the Indian Trusts Act and is not intended to provide for an exception to the said provisions atargument is wholly inconclusive. There are several other clauses in the trust deed which also bring out provisions corresponding to the relevant provision of the Trusts Act and this argument may apply to the said clauses is well. The authors of the trust, while creating the trust, have made elaborate provisions in respect of the several matters concerning the execution of the trust, and the whole scheme of the trust deed is consistent with the operative cl. 23 in that it seems to require all the trustees to act together even though the decisions which they seek to give effect to may have been majority decisions and not unanimous decisions. Therefore, in our opinion, the Courts below were right in holding that cl. 23, like the main provision of S. 48, requires that all the trustees should have joined in the execution of the sale deeds in question. That being so, Exs.37 which are respectively executed in favour of defendant 14 and defendant 13 are invalid and can pass no title to the alienees on the ground that only two out of the three trustees have executedhave considered the evidence to which our attention was invited in this connection, and we see no reason to interfere with the concurrent conclusion recorded by the Courts below that Narayana Pillai was not a consenting party to the transfer in question. That being so, the alternative ground made in support of Ex.fails. If the transfers in favour of defendant 14 (Ex.as well as Ex.in favour of defendant 13 fail on this found it is really not necessary to consider the further question as to whether both the said transfers were effected for grossly inadequateappears that the certificate was granted by the High Court to the respective defendants who have come to this Court as appellants on November 26, 1954 and the appeals were admitted on December 4, 1955, whereas the amendment has been made after the appeals were admitted. The application for the amendment in question was made under Ss. 151 and 152 of the Code; and it became necessary because the decretal order drawn in the High Court referred to the profits of which accounts were directed as mesne profits. The use of the words "mesne profits" would have inevitably brought in the period of three years beyond which accounts could not be claimed. By their application the plaintiffs alleged that the use of "mesne profits" in the decretal order was inconsistent with the judgment which had directed accounts of the net profits and so they claimed that the decretal order should be corrected in cl. III,(3). According to the prayer thus made it was suggested that the clause should read as follows that the defendants 12, 13 and 14 are liable for the net profits of the properties purchased by them under schedule V, schedule II and schedule I respectively". The word "net profit" was used in the place of "mesne profits" originally introduced in the order. When this application for amendment was argued before the High Court the defendants pleaded that the use of the words "mesne profits" was proper and should not be changed. It was urged on their behalf that in its judgment the High Court had introduced the words "mesne profits" deliberately and so the decretal order was perfectly correct. This contention has been negatived by the High Court, and in our opinion rightly. It appears that in the earlier portion of his judgment Krishnaswami Naidu, J. summarised in one paragraph the effect of the decree passed by the trial court; and in giving this summary he observed that under the decree defendants 12, 13, 14 and 16 were held entitled to be paid the respective considerations of the sales and mortgages together with interest they being liable to account for mesne profits as per the terms of the decree. Two things are clear. This part of the judgment does not contain the decision of the High Court at all. It is really concerned with the narration of the relevant facts and it purports to summarise the effect of the decree and nothing more. Besides, the use of the words "mesne profits" in the context is obviously the result of inadvertence because the decree of the trial court had in the relevant clause used the words "net profits" and not "mesne profits". Thus, there can be no doubt that the decretal order drawn in the High Court through error introduced the words "mesne profits" and such an error could be corrected by the High Court under Ss. 151 and 152 of the Code even though the appeals may have been admitted in this Court before the date ofthere is no doubt that awould be entitled to mesne profits for three years and not more; but in the present case we are dealing with a claim made by the plaintiffs on behalf of the trust and the decision in their favour has rendered it necessary to adjust equities between the trust and the respective alienees alienations in whose favour have been set aside as invalid.We have already seen that having set aside the alienations in favour of defendant 14 and others the Courts below have directed that the alienees should get the amounts due to them from the trust. It has also been directed that interest at the rate awarded by the decree should be paid to them on the said amounts. This cleary is an equitable relief granted to the alienees. Having held that the alienees should interest on the amounts due to them from the dates of their respective mortgages or sales the Courts in fairness have directed that the alienees in turn should give an account of the net profits of the properties which were wrongfully in their possession commencing with the date when they got possession. If the technical argument based on Art. 109 is upheld as a matter of law there would be no scope for giving equitable relief to the alienees at all and they may be driven to file fresh actions to recover their claims and such actions would have to face the possible plea of limitation. That is why the High Court has observed that the question about the net profits awardable to the trust and interest awardable to the alienees, involves considerations of equitable adjustment, and it is by way of an equitable adjustment that the relevant directions have been issued by the decree.It is not disputed that the Court had jurisdiction to make such an equitable adjustment. Indeed, in many cases of this type Courts have made equitable adjustments between rivalprincipal and interest ordered to be paid to defendant 14 and the profits ordered to be paid by him are thus integral parts of an equitable adjustment between the plaintiffs and defendantposition cannot be disputed; but the answer to the plea is that the present decree is not passed in an action instituted by defendant 14 as a mortgagee. The present decree is passed while adjusting equities between defendant 14 the alienation in whose favour is set aside; his rights as mortgagee are equitably recognised and thereby further litigation is avoided. Since the decree by which defendant 14 is allowed to recover his mortgage dues has been passed for giving him equitable relief it was open to the High Court to consider whether compound interest should be paid to him or not. As the High Court has pointed out, while adjusting equities between the parties the mortgage does not become revived as such but the relief granted to the 14th defendant is based on equity and justice, and so the High Court thought that the interests of justice would be met if he is paid out of the sale proceeds the principal amount of the mortgage with simple interest at 10 1/2%. We have carefully considered the contention raised by the learnedin this behalf but we do not think that we would be justified in interfering with the modification made by the High Court in the decree passed by the trial court.We now turn to Civil Appeal No. 77 of 1959 filed by defendants 12, 13 and 16. We will take the case of defendant 12 first. We have already seen that in favour of defendant 12 a sale deed has been executed on November 7, 1941 (Ex.This sale deed has been set aside on twothat it is executed in favour of a person who by intermeddling with the estate of the trust has become trustee de son tort, and second that the properties covered by the document have been sold for inadequateis conceded by Mr. Ganapathy Iyer that if we confirm the finding recorded by the Courts below against defendant 12 on the first point that itself would invalidate the transfer in his favour. He has, however, argued that the said finding is erroneous. Having carefully considered the relevant material we see no reason to interfere with the finding inis in the light of these facts that the Courts below have held that defendant 12 is a trustee de son tort. As is observed in "Williams on Executors and Administrators" (Williams on Executors and Administrators, 14th ed. Vol. I, p. 28) "a very slight act of intermeddling with the goods of the deceased will make a person executor de son tort". In the present case the acts of intermeddling by defendant 12 spread over a fairly long period and cannot in any sense be regarded as minor and insignificant. We would accordingly hold that defendant 12 is in the position of trustee de son tort and so the sale deed executed in his favour (Ex.is bad on that account alone.29. In regard to defendant 13 there are two transactions in his favour, Ex.79. Ex.as we have already seen is invalid for the reason that it has been executed by two out of the three trustees. That leaves Ex.but before we deal with that transaction it would be relevant to refer to a general consideration which applies to all the transfers in favour of defendants 12, 13 and 16. Defendants 12 and 13 are theof Veerabahu and defendant 16 is theof defendant 13. It is quite clear that under S. 52 of the Trusts Act "no trustee whose duty it is to selland no agent employed by such trustee for the purpose of the sale, may, directly or indirectly, buy the same or any interest therein, on his own account or as agent for a third person". This position is thus stated by Lewin on Trusts : "A trustee is absolutely and entirely disabled from purchasing the trust property whether it be real estate or a chattel personal, land, or a ground rent, in reversion or possession, whether the purchase be made in the trustees own name or in the name of a trustee for him, directly or indirectly, as to a purchaser upon a contract or understanding (amounting to more than mere expectation that the purchaser shall resell to the trustee, by private contract or public auction, from himself as the single trustee, or with the sanction of his(Lewin on Trusts, 15th ed., p. 797). Thus, the alienations by the trustees in favour of theof one of the trustees would be bad for this reason. Besides, under S. 47 of the Indian Trusts Act a trustee cannot delegate his office or any of his duties either to aor to a stranger, unless the instrument of trust so provides, or the delegation is in the regular course of business, or the delegation is necessary, or the beneficiary, being competent to contract, consents to the delegation. The trust did impose upon the trustees the obligation to sell the properties of the trust at the highest price recoverable and to distribute the sale proceeds amongst the creditors of the authors of the trust. The documents in favour of defendants 13 and 16 seem to leave it to the respective purchasers to pay the debts and that may be another infirmity in the transaction.30. Going back to Ex.which is a transfer in favour of defendant 13 it is evident that this transaction is inevitably connected with another transaction Ex.79 has been executed for a consideration of Rs. 2,000 and odd and it relates to 3 acres and 14 cents of schedule VIII property. It appears that defendant 13 had obtained another sale deed Ex.on April 19, 1937. This sale deed consisted of 51 items of property belonging to the trust which had spread over five villages. These items consisted ofand lands. The sale deed was for Rs. 5,000. Defendant 13 in his turn proceeded to sell the said property by different lots to respective buyers. Amongst the creditors of the estate was Lakshmi Ammal to whom Rs. 800 was payable on the basis of 50% of return of debt. Defendant sold to Lakshmi Ammal 64 cents out of the lands purchased by him under Ex.It, however, appears that in respect of the 3 acres and 14 cents which was the subject matter of Ex.Original Suit No. 32 of 1941 was instituted by persons who claimed title to the said property. To that suit Lakshmi Ammal was impleaded as a defendant and so was defendant 13. Ultimately the said suit was decreed and the property in question was held to belong to the plaintiffs in that suit and not to the estate of defendants 1 to 6. It was as a result of this decree that Ex.came to be passed in favour of defendant 13. This document purports to convey 3 acres and 14 cents of another property to make good the loss to him by reason of the decree in Suit No. 32 of 1941. Thus, it would be seen that the transaction evidenced by Ex.can stand only if the transaction evidenced by Ex.is valid and not otherwise. The Courts below have held that this latter transaction is obviously and patently invalid. In our opinion, this conclusion is right. It is true that Ex.is not directly challenged in the present suit because the properties covered by it have been sold to different purchasers by defendant 13 and they have not been impleaded. Even so, since Ex.is the very foundation of Ex.it is open to the plaintiffs to contend that the validity of Ex.should be considered for determining the validity of Ex.and that is what the Courts below have done. Now, one has merely to look at the broad features of Ex.to be satisfied that it is an invalid transaction. It is patent that no attempt was made to value the properties individually. The properties numbering 51 and spread over five villages were all grouped together and sold for Rs. 5,000 without making any serious efforts to determine the value of the lot. The purchaser was told to sell the properties to the respective creditors of the estate and thus satisfy them. That in substance is delegation of the functions of the trustees which they could notdefendant 13. The stamp paper for the sale deed Ex.stands in the name of Veerabahu Pillai and defendant 13 was unable to explain how the stamp paper came to be in that name. Defendant 13 admitted that he did not inspect the property before its purchase and that he had no idea about its value. As the trial court has observed, the transaction cannot be regarded "as a bona fide sale because the property consists of odd assortment of punja lands and house sites in Pathi, Padmaneri and Sivilpuri villages". Therefore, we have no difficulty whatever in agreeing with the conclusion of the Courts below that Ex.was invalid; if that be so Ex.must be held to be invalid for that reason alone. Incidentally, we may refer to the fact that defendant 13 admitted in the earlier suit that he had not refunded the purchase money to Lakshmi Ammal and that substantially destroys the basis of Ex.because defendant 13 not having paid anything to Lakshmi Ammal had no right to retain the property conveyed to him.31. The last transactions which have yet to be examined are those in favour of defendant 16. In regard to these transactions the trial court has found that evidence adduced by the plaintiffs shows that the consideration for which properties were sold were grossly inadequate. The vendee, defendant 16, did not care to examine himself. Besides, as we have already pointed our he is a close relation of defendants 12 and 13. The High Court has concurred with the trial courts conclusion. The only point which was attempted to be made by Mr. Pattabhiraman in challenging the correctness of this concurrent conclusion is that the Courts appear to have assumed that the agricultural lands conveyed to defendant 16 were all double crop lands. On this assumption he suggested that the calculation made about the true value of the said properties errs on the side of overstatement. It is not disputed that of the lands conveyed 3 acres and 24 cents are single crop while approximately 3 1/2 acres are double crop. On looking at the judgments of both the Courts below, however, we are satisfied that the argument is misconceived because neither judgment proceeds on the assumption that the whole of the agricultural property is double crop land. In fact the discussion in the judgment of the trial court on Issue No. 27 quite clearly negatives the assumption made by Mr. Pattabhiraman. That being so, as the Courts below have observed, evidence led by the plaintiffs in support of their case that the transfers were effected for grossly inadequate price has remained unrebutted. The question about the value of the property as been determined on the evidence, documentray and oral, led in the case, and both the Courts have found in favour of the plaintiffs and against the alienees. Incidentally, we may point out that Mr. Viswanatha Sastri appears to be right when he suggests that schedule VII refers to the properties both at Thirukurunkudi as well as Padmaneri though the heading of the schedule refers only to Thirukurunkudi.