Judgment :- 1. This revision is directed against the order of dismissal passed by the Principal District Judge, Periyar Dt., at Erode. 2. The facts which are necessary for the disposal of this revision can be briefly stated as follows: The revision petitioners herein filed a petition under S. 34 of the Indian Trusts Act, wherein it is averred as follows— The two petitioners are the descendants of one Elaiaperumal Gounder of Erayamangalam village of Salem Dt. Elaiaperumal founded an ancient temple by name Sri Elayaperumal alias Venkataramanasami Temple in the 18th century. He died leaving his son Dhandigai-vela Gounder. One Elaiaperumal, Nagamaiai Gounder, Peria Rangiah Gounder and Subbaraya Gounder are the sons of Dhandigaivela Gounder. The said Peria Rangiah Gounder died in the year 1901 leaving his minor son Ganapathi Gounder, whose paternal uncle Nagamalai Gounder was managing the estate of Ganapathi Gounder during his minority. Afterwards Ganapathi Gounder himself took management of the temple and created a private trust by executing a registered trust deed dt. 19-4-1920. As per the said deed, the trustee were to manage the trust in turns and perform certain Ubayams and charities as provided in the deed. Out of the religious charities items Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 alone are being performed while the remaining items have been discontinued. The annual income from the lands which are of an extent of 5.32 hectares is Rs. 14,300 and after deducting the expenses including the pay meat of kist, the net income will be Rs. 13,000 only. The rental income from the shops was Rs. 1,500 per month till May, 1985 and it has been increased to Rs. 2,000 per month thereafter. After deducting the municipal tax, the balance available will be Rs. 22,156 per annum. Further a sum of Rs. 750 is realised from the tamarind tope. A sum of Rs. 47,866 has to be incurred as expenditure for doing the performance. The petitioners have been spending their personal income for performing such religious charities as the income is not sufficient. There is a clause in the trust deed that the trust properties should not be alienated. If the lands are sold and invested, it will easily fetch a sum of Rs. 35,000 per annum by way of interest. The petitioners have been spending their personal income for performing such religious charities as the income is not sufficient. There is a clause in the trust deed that the trust properties should not be alienated. If the lands are sold and invested, it will easily fetch a sum of Rs. 35,000 per annum by way of interest. Hence, it was prayed for granting permission under S. 20 of the Indian Trusts Act, for sale of the landed properties after publication or through private negotiation and for investment of the sale proceeds. 3. Many persons claiming interest in the trust filed objections. One Rukmani got herself impleaded as a party respondent. All of them contended that the petitioners have purposely reduced the income and exaggerated the expenditure. According to them, there is no necessity to sell the landed properties. The alleged will said to have been executed by Ganapathi Gounder is nothing but a forged one. They prayed for dismissal of the petition. 4. The District Judge for the reasons assigned in his order came to the conclusion that there is no necessity to sell the landed properties. The court has no power to grant permission to sell the properties when there is an express provision in the trust deed that the properties should not be sold and consequently dismissed the petition. Hence this revision. 5. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner Mr. T.L. Rammohan mainly contended that though the document dated 19-4-1920 is styled as trust deed, yet it is not a trust deed; but it is only a deed of charge created over the properties for performing certain charities. According to him, the management is entrusted with the members of the family and no outsider is entitled to claim the surplus. As such, even though there is a clause in the deed, wherein alienation is prohibited, the said clause will not prevent them from selling the properties. Further, the tenants who are in occupation of the premises are willing to purchase the properties at Rs. 9,25,000 each and that the interest payable will be more than the income realised from the properties and as such the order passed by the Court below dismissing the petition is erroneous and illegal. 6. As regards the first contention it is seen that Ex. 9,25,000 each and that the interest payable will be more than the income realised from the properties and as such the order passed by the Court below dismissing the petition is erroneous and illegal. 6. As regards the first contention it is seen that Ex. A1 which is a registration copy of the trust deed, was executed on 19-4-1920 by one Rarnasami Gounder, Ganapathi Gounder, grandfather of the petitioners and four others, by which the properties described in the schedule were dedicated for the performance of certain charities referred to in the deed. It is specifically provided in the document that the above Ramaswami Gounder and five others and after them, their heirs had to manage the properties and out of the income, they have to perform the charities and maintain proper accounts in turns and that they shoutd not entrust the management to others and that the surplus if any is to be spent according to the decision of the majority. It is specifically provided in the document that the properties should not be alienated. The properties consist of 13.6 acres of nanja lands in Sathampur village, eight shops at Erode Town, and another house. One other property referred to is two acres of punja lands at A ttavanai Erayamansgalam village and 6 acres of lands with coconut trees at Erayamangalam village with 9 11? house and other structures. Besides that, gold jewels and other articles are also mentioned. According to the case of the petitioners, the annual income from the lands is only Rs. 14,300 and the net income will be Rs. 13,000 after payment of kist. The rental income from the shops is Rs. 2,000 per mensem. After deducting the municipal tax, the balance available will be Rs. 22,156 per annum. Besi des that, a sum of Rs. 750 is realised from the tamarind tope. A sum of Rs. 47866 has been incurred as expenditure for doing performances. According to them, if the lands are sold and the proceeds are invested, it would easily fetch a sum of Rs. 36000 per annum by way of interest. Hence they prayed for permission under S. 20 of the Indian Trusts Act, for sale of the landed property. A sum of Rs. 47866 has been incurred as expenditure for doing performances. According to them, if the lands are sold and the proceeds are invested, it would easily fetch a sum of Rs. 36000 per annum by way of interest. Hence they prayed for permission under S. 20 of the Indian Trusts Act, for sale of the landed property. The District Judge relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Official Trustee, West Bengal v. Sachindra 1 and held that the court has no power to grant permission to the trustees to sell the properties when there is an express provision in the trust deed Ex. A-1 that the properties must not be sold. The said proposition of law is not disputed. But, what is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that it is not a trust deed, but it is only a deed creating a charge over the properties for doing certain performances and that there is no bar in selling the properties. Learned counsel for the revision petitioners relied on the decision of this court reported in Srinivasachariar v. Ramanujam and others 2 in support of their contention. The ratio laid down in that case is not at all applicable, to the facts of this case. That was a case where a will was executed in respect of certain properties, and in respect of one of the items, a provision was made for performing certain charities, namely, half a measure of cooked rice should be prepared every day in the Tamil month of Margazhi and distributed to the devotees. The learned Judge, on the facts of the said case, came to the conclusion that on a consideration of the language employed in the dispositive clause relating to items 5 of the B schedule, there is no dedication of the property either to the temple or to any trust for the performance of the charity; but only the creation of a charge over the income of the property for the purpose of the charily. The learned Judge found in that case that even though there is a clause in the will that no encumbrance should be created, that property was capable of being divided or alienated subject to the performance of the obligations imposed on the properties. The said decision is not at all helpful to the facts of this case. The learned Judge found in that case that even though there is a clause in the will that no encumbrance should be created, that property was capable of being divided or alienated subject to the performance of the obligations imposed on the properties. The said decision is not at all helpful to the facts of this case. In the case on hand, by virtue of the trust deed, the properties were dedicated for the performance of religious charities in the temple, the mere fact that the management vested with the members of the family would not mean that they can go against the wishes of the person who created the trust and alienate the properties. 7. Even otherwise, I find that the petitioners have not made out any case of necessity for sale of the properties. It is seen that admittedly the two buildings have been leased out on a monthly rent of Rs. 2000 each and that the net income derived from the buildings is about Rs. 22000 per annum. Even according to the petitioners the income from the tamarind tope per annum comes to Rs. 750. As per the admission of P.W.I the annual income from the two acres and 8 cents in Nanjaikalamangalam village would be Rs. 5000. The income from the 13 acres of nanja land is stated to be Rs. 14300 per annum. The objectors have disputed the quantum of expenditure mentioned by the petitioners as Rs. 47866. It is contended that the petitioners have exaggerated the expenses. As per the trust deed, the petitioners have to maintain accounts. Significantly, the petitioners have not produced their account books into court to show as to how much has been spent every year for religious charities and also the income derived from the properties. Learned counsel for the petitioners relied on the decision reported in In re v. Gundappa 3 for the proposition that the Court has in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction power to go beyond the express provisions of the trust instrument, in cases of emergency, cases not foreseen or provided for by the authority of the trust. In the instant case, there is absolutely nothing to show any such circumstances which warrant the sale of the properties contrary to the recitals of the deed wherein alienation is prohibited. In the instant case, there is absolutely nothing to show any such circumstances which warrant the sale of the properties contrary to the recitals of the deed wherein alienation is prohibited. The proposition laid down in that case has been rightly held to be not applicable to the instant case by the lower court. Even though the petitioners have stated that the values of the properties would be about Rs. 3 lakhs and that the income will be Rs. 35000 by way of interest, it has been demonstrated on his own evidence that one acre of land can be sold from Rs. 50000 to Rs. 70000. It is now stated at the time of the arguments that each tenant is prepared to purchase for Rs. 9.25 lakhs and that they have entered into an agreement to that effect with the petitioners. Hence, no reliance can be placed on the version of the petitioners even regarding the market value of the properties. Since this court agreed with the conclusion of the lower Court that the petitioners have no right whatsoever to alienate the properties and that there is no necessity for doing so, the question of considering the value of the properties does not arise. This court also agrees with the observations of the lower court that the value of the cultivable lands is increasing all these years and at the same time the value of the rupee is decreasing. As such, there is no necessity to give permission to the petitioners to sell the properties and invest the proceeds in any nationalised bank. On a careful analysis of the entire materials placed before me, I am of the view that the order passed by the learned District Judge is perfectly legal and correct and that it does not suffer from any infirmity, either legal or factual. On the other hand, the Court below has exercised its jurisdiction neither illegally nor with material irregularity so as to warrant this Court to interfere with the same in this revision. 8. In the result the revision fails and stands dismissed. However, in the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.