Judgment :- 1. This second appeal has arisen in a suit in enforcement of a transaction, more or less of the nature of a catching bargain.' 2. Under Ext. A, dated Dhanu 1,1030 M.E. (corresponding to December 16,1864), the plaintiff's ancestor made an endowment of 151 rasis (a little less than Rs. 53) to Ayikkacheri Temple belonging to the defendant's family for the purpose of cooking one measure (nazhi) of rice everyday and making an oblation thereof to the deity and delivering the consecrated rice to the endower and his successors for ever and ever, and the defendant's ancestor accepted the endowment. It is admitted that the stipulated service was being carried out regularly till 1103 and defaulted thereafter. For recovery of value of the cooked rice that fell in arrears, the plaintiff had filed O.S. Nos. 80 of 1105, 1110 of 1110 and 198 of 1119 in the Court of the Munsiff, Mavelikara, got decrees and obtained satisfaction thereof. The judgment in the first suit is Ext. B; and that of the trial Court in the third suit is Ext. I which was affirmed in appeal by the judgment, Ext. C. They show that in those suits the plaintiff claimed the price of rice at 7 chuckrams (roughly 4 annas) per measure payable every day; but the Court decreed the claim at one chuckram [31/2 paise] per measure only. The present suit is for the price office accrued in the six years, 1945-50, on the averment that, even after the aforesaid decrees, the defendant has not been carrying out the trust. Here also, claim is made at 7 chuckrams per day, amounting to Rs. 89.67 p. per annum, with interest past and future; and that has been decreed by the Courts below disallowing interest before suit. Hence this second appeal by the defendant. 3. As return for Rs. 53/- paid a century ago by the plaintiff's ancestor to the defendant's ancestor the plaintiff is claiming from the defendant Rs. 89 odd, year after year, for ever and a day. This is unconscionable according to every standard known to law. The defendant in his written statement pleaded inability to perform the trust with the proceeds of the endowment, offered to return to the plaintiff the amount received by his ancestor and prayed to be relieved of the obligation to which he was no party personally. This is unconscionable according to every standard known to law. The defendant in his written statement pleaded inability to perform the trust with the proceeds of the endowment, offered to return to the plaintiff the amount received by his ancestor and prayed to be relieved of the obligation to which he was no party personally. But the plaintiff resisted the plea; and the Courts below have held the defendant bound by the undertaking of his ancestor. The question in this second appeal is whether the view of the Courts below is sustainable in law. 4. The relief claimed in this suit is sell-expositive of its inequity; but counsel for the respondent insists on performance of the agreement according to its terms. The necessity of relieving unwary persons from unconscionable agreements in which they might be caught by their crafty neighbours has been delineated in an impressive manner by that most celebrated dramatist of the 16th century - I mean, William Shakespeare in his 'Merchant of Venice'. Since then the judges have refused enforcement of many an agreement in the name of equity, public policy or social justice. The present case, though relating to a trust, seems to call for a like relief; and I think it may be done - as counsel exhorted - without inventing a new principle or ignoring any known principle of law. 5. A trust is "an obligation annexed to the ownership of property". The trustee's obligation is only to perform the trust out of the proceeds of the trust property. He is not obliged to spend anything out of his pocket for the performance of the trust. If the income from the property falls off, the trustee "is in duty bound to regulate the scale of services with reference to the reduced income", Vide: The Hindu Law of Religious and Charitable Trust by Mukherjea (2nd edn., pages 263-4), Nagendra Nath Palit v. Robindra Narain Deb (XXX C.W.N. 389, 404) and Nallayappa Pillian v. Ambalavana Pandara Sannadhi (ILR. 27 Madras, 465, 473). 6. Here, the endowment or the trust property is a sum of Rs. 53 only. Ext. A, the deed of endowment, does not direct any particular form of investment with that sum. The normal proceeds from a sum of money is the interest it may yield. 27 Madras, 465, 473). 6. Here, the endowment or the trust property is a sum of Rs. 53 only. Ext. A, the deed of endowment, does not direct any particular form of investment with that sum. The normal proceeds from a sum of money is the interest it may yield. At 6% per annum, the highest rate available for a safe investment in this country, the sum of Rs. 53/- can yield an interest of Rs. 3.18 p. only in an year. It is common knowledge that with three or four rupees no one will be able to purchase the fuel necessary for cooking a measure of rice daily for one month - let alone a year. At the rate of one measure of rice per day, 911/4 Edangalis (i.e. above 911/4 kg.) of rice will be required for a year. The cost of fuel necessary for its cooking and the wages of the Archaka have also to be met in order to perform the stipulated services. The plaintiff himself has valued the rice deliverable to him in an year, if the trust were carried out according to its terms, at Rs. 89/- odd per year. That may be a fair estimate of the value of the rice required and the cost of its cooking. It is obvious that with the proceeds of the endowment it will not be possible for the trustee to carry out the trust even for a fortnight. And yet, the plaintiff is insisting in this suit that the trustee should perform the trust de die in diem throughout the year and for ever out of the scanty proceeds of the small endowment of his predecessor. It is asking the defendant to do the impossible. The trustee is bound only to manage the trust property as a prudent and reasonable man and perform the trust with its proceeds, but not to perform the trust coute que coute. as the stipulated service has not been performed in the relevant period even to the extent of the available proceeds, the plaintiff may call the defendant to account for the unspent proceeds of the endowment, that is to say, for the reasonable interest derivable from the sum of Rs. 53 that his ancestor endowed to the temple of the defendant's family. 7. 53 that his ancestor endowed to the temple of the defendant's family. 7. In the result, the decree of the Court below is modified to entitle the plaintiff to realise from the defendant Rs. 3.18 p. per year for the six years for which relief is sought in this suit - Rs. 19.08 p. in all - with interest at 6% per annum from date of suit till realisation. As the claim has been unconscionably exaggerated, the plaintiff has to receive and pay proportionate costs throughout, according to his success and defeat here. The provisions of Order XXI R.19 CPC. will apply to the decree in this case.