Judgment :- 1. The suit property belonged to one Assanussan Masthan Rowther who died in 1953. He had executed a deed of settlement, Ext. P3, on 6-11-1944 (21-3-1120) in favour of his son-in-law, the 1st defendant, subject to the condition that the latter will pay Rs. 13,000/- partly to the widow and children and partly to the children of his late son, Kottoor Masthan Rowther. The suit is by the children of Kottoor Masthan Rowther for the amounts thus due to them from the 1st defendant on the second count. 2. On 8-11-1946 (23-3-1122) the 1st defendant has executed a hypothecation, Ext. D1, to the 2nd defendant, the Palai Central Bank (now in liquidation), charging the suit property along with several other properties. The 2nd defendant resisted the suit claiming priority under the hypothecation over the plaintiffs' claim. The Court below has repelled that defence and has decreed the suit holding that the direction in Ext. P-3 to pay the plaintiffs amounted to a trust. Hence this appeal by the 2nd defendant. 3. Counsel for the appellant contended that a direction in a deed of gift or settlement to pay a sum of money to another will not create a trust and that if it is not a trust the plaintiffs' claim cannot have any priority over the appellant's hypothecation. 4. In Rana Uma Nath Bakhsh Singh v. Jang Bahadur (AIR. 1938 P.C. 245), the settlor gifted all his properties to the appellant who agreed "to act according to the conditions laid down in the deed executed today by me in favour of the (settlor)" and by the latter deed the appellant undertook to pay Rs. 30,000 to the respondent who was an illegitimate son of the settlor. In upholding the respondent's claim the judicial Committee observed: "It is reasonably plain,.... that the two instruments must be read together, and that the obligations undertaken by the appellant are the terms upon which his father (the settlor) was surrendering to him immediate possession of all his property. Moreover the provision for Jang Bahadur of a village and of Rs. 30,000 is intended to come out of the property which was being surrendered. that the two instruments must be read together, and that the obligations undertaken by the appellant are the terms upon which his father (the settlor) was surrendering to him immediate possession of all his property. Moreover the provision for Jang Bahadur of a village and of Rs. 30,000 is intended to come out of the property which was being surrendered. In these circumstances a number of decisions by this Board have made it difficult for learned counsel for the appellant to contest the proposition that the instruments created a trust in favour of Jang Bahadur: 11 M.I.A. 517 at p. 549, 20 I. A. 9, 37 I.A. 152, 46 I. A. 64 and 49 I. A. 153. Their Lordships are in agreement with the learned judges of the Chief Court in holding that the effect of cl. (4) above cited was to create a trust in favour of the plaintiff enforceable at his instance." The ratio of that decision must apply here, the facts, as regards the question in issue, being quite parallel in both cases. It must then follow that the decision of the Court below is right. The appeal has no force, and is hereby dismissed with costs. Dismissed.