JUDGMENT : V Srishananda, J. Heard Sri.M.Narayana Reddy, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri. Preetham, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sri.Prabhakar D., learned counsel for respondent No.1. 2. Defendant Nos.2 and 3 in O.S.No.2/1992 are the appellants challenging the judgment and decree passed in the said suit dated 18.04.2007 by the I Additional District Judge, Kolar. 3. Parties are referred to as plaintiffs and defendants for the sake of convenience as per their original ranking before the Trial Court. 4. Facts in the nutshell which are utmost necessary for disposal of the appeal are as under: 4.1. Plaintiffs namely S.N.Lakshmipathi and Narayana Setty being the legal representatives of original plaintiff namely L.Ramanjaneya Setty filed a suit against Achamma, P.Ramaiah, J.Suresh Kumar and J.Danaraj with the following prayer in respect of following properties: PRAYER Wherefore the plaintiffs most humbly prays that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to pass judgment and decree against the defendants that: a. Declaring the suit schedule properties are the trust properties of the P.Hanumappa Setty Hostel Trust. b. Directing for setting aside the sale deed dated 05.03.1987 executed by the defendants 1 and 2 in favour of the defendants 3 and 4. c. For issue of permanent injunction restraining the defendants not to dispose or alter the said suit schedule properties. d. Directing the removal of the defendants 1 and 2 from the trust as the trustees and appoint a new suitable trustees for the benefit of the trust. SCHEDULE House property bearing No.(old) 1154/1184 New No.1353/1344 bounded on East: Property of Muniswamy Gowda, North, South and West: Roads situated at Jyothinagarapate, Mulbagal Town. 4.2. During the pendency of the suit, original plaintiff died and therefore, legal representatives are brought on record. So also defendant No.2 died and it was reported. 4.3. In the plaint, it is contended that suit property originally belonged to one P. Hanumappa Setty who is the husband of defendant No.1 on 05.10.1949. Said P. Hanumappa Shetty had executed deed of trust and created trust consisting of nine members under the name and style of ‘P.Hanumappa Setty Hostel’ which was catering to the needy students for free boarding and lodging for benefit of Jyothinagara Vysya students. Defendant No.1 was one of the trustees. 4.4. On 14.05.1951, defendant No.1 executed another trust deed including defendant No.1 and eight others and donated several items of the property mentioned in the said registered deed. Defendant No.1 was one of the trustees. 4.4. On 14.05.1951, defendant No.1 executed another trust deed including defendant No.1 and eight others and donated several items of the property mentioned in the said registered deed. The said registered deed included suit property also. 4.5. In the said trust deed, few conditions were stipulated which would enable the trustees to use the properties for the benefit of the trust and to retain the properties perpetually for the benefit of the trust. 4.6. The possession of the properties was also handed over to the trust and defendant No.1 agreed being the chair person of the said trust. 4.7. Among the said properties, one house property, described in the plaint schedule, was also part of the trust properties and with regard to the suit property, condition stipulated in the trust deed is that defendant No.1 is entitled to reside or lease out the said property till her lifetime. 4.8. Pursuant to the those conditions, chair person of the trust (defendant No.1) held the property of the trust and let out two portion of the suit property to defendant Nos.3 and 4 and they continued in possession of those portions as tenants. 4.9. Plaint averments further reveal that even though there was only life interest created in defendant No.1 to enjoy the property as owner, title of the property remained with the trust by virtue of the trust deed dated 14.05.1951. 4.10. Plaint averments also reveal that when the matter stood thus, defendant No.1 sold two portions of the house in favour of defendant Nos.3 and 4 for a valuable consideration of Rs.45,000/- and Rs.48,000/- respectively on 05.03.1987. 4.11.Thus, defendant No.1 violated the conditions stipulated in the trust deed and therefore, alienation is illegal resulting in wrongful loss to the trust and wrongful gain to defendant No.1. 4.12. Defendant Nos.3 and 4 being well aware of the fact that the property is the trust property, joined hands in the illegal activities of defendant No.1 in alienation of two portions of the house property in utter violation of the conditions stipulated in the trust deed and thus, plaintiffs sought for aforesaid relief. 5. Pursuant to the suit summons, defendant Nos.3 and 4 entered appearance and filed common written statement by contending that suit properties belonged to late P. Hanumappa Setty, who is the husband of defendant No.1. 6. 5. Pursuant to the suit summons, defendant Nos.3 and 4 entered appearance and filed common written statement by contending that suit properties belonged to late P. Hanumappa Setty, who is the husband of defendant No.1. 6. However, they denied the fact that reconstitution of trust on 14.05.1951. They also denied that the life interest was only created in favour of defendant No.1. They maintained that defendant No.1 had every right, title and interest to alienate the property and sought for dismissal of the suit. 7. Defendants further contended that suit is barred by limitation and sought for dismissal of the suit. 8. Based on the rival contentions of the parties, learned Trial Judge raised following issues: 1.Whether the plaintiffs proves that there exists a trust by name Sri.Pachagiri Hanumappasetty’s Jyothinagar Vysya Hostel? 2.Whether the plaintiffs prove that the first defendant executed the registered gift deed dated 14.05.1951 in favour of trust gifting the suit property along with the other properties? 3.Whether the first defendant was having only a life interest in the suit property during her life time to enjoy that property? 4.If issue No.1 and 2 are held in affirmative whether the sale of suit property under two registered sale deeds dated 05.03.1987 in favour of defendants 3 and 4 are not binding on the trust? 5.Whether first defendant is to be removed from the trust as a trustee? 6.Whether the suit is not properly valued for the purpose of Court fee? 7.Whether the present suit does not fall under Section 92 of Civil Procedure Code, thereby this Court cannot entertain the suit? 8.To which reliefs the plaintiffs are entitled to? 9.What order or what decree? 9. In order to prove the case of the plaintiff, S.N.lakshmipathi, who is first legal representative of original plaintiff got examined as P.W.1. 10. 7.Whether the present suit does not fall under Section 92 of Civil Procedure Code, thereby this Court cannot entertain the suit? 8.To which reliefs the plaintiffs are entitled to? 9.What order or what decree? 9. In order to prove the case of the plaintiff, S.N.lakshmipathi, who is first legal representative of original plaintiff got examined as P.W.1. 10. He placed on record, 28 documents which were exhibited and marked as Exs.P.1 to P.28 comprising of certified copy of trust deed, sale deed, assessment register extract, demand register extract, copy of the legal notice and postal acknowledgements, meeting book, hostel account book, rent account book, documents received from DDPI office, copy of the notice from Advocate – Ramaiah, copy of the letter written to Assistant Commissioner, copy of the meeting proceedings, extract of account details relating to bank, post office of trust, invitation cards of yearly aradhana, document relating to defendant No.1, resolution copy from 1977 to 1987 and book pertaining to issuance of scholarships to the students. 11. In the examination-in-chief of P.W.1, he reiterated the contents of the plaint and sought for decreeing of the suit. 12. In his cross-examination, on behalf of defendant Nos.3 and 4, P.W.1 has answered that in the original trust there were nine trustees and he has furnished the names of the nine trustees. 13. He has admitted that as on the date of cross-examination, defendant No.1 is the chair person of the trust. Apart from defendant No.1, P.W.1, defendant No.2, M.G.Venkatagiriyappa, T.Papasetty, Narayana Setty, J.M.P.Rajanna are all remaining trustees of the said reconsistuted trust. 14. He has answered that new trustees are to be inducted, their needs a resolution in the meetings and thereafter, reconstitution took place which needs registration before the Sub-registrar office. 15. He has admitted that the alienation was made known to all the trustees. 16. He has answered that he gave resignation to the trust after alienation. He further admits that register books of the trust and resolution book were in the custody of defendant No.1. 17. He also admits that when he was the Secretary of the trust, there used to be monthly meeting and accounts which were being sent to Endowment Commissioner. 18. He has also answered that at the first instance, the trust had seven properties but when the trust was first formulated, there was only one property which was for the hostel building. 19. 18. He has also answered that at the first instance, the trust had seven properties but when the trust was first formulated, there was only one property which was for the hostel building. 19. He has further answered that suit property was in the name of P.Hanumappa Setty and after his death, since there was no issues, name of defendant No.1 was mutated in respect of the suit property and defendant No.1 was having the possession of the suit property. 20. To a suggestion that in the year 1968, defendant No.1 let the premises to defendant No.4 is pleaded ignorance by the witness. He has answered that defendant No.1 had let out the premises earlier to 1968 but he does not know who was the tenant at that point of time. He denied that to maintain the daily needs of defendant No.1, she sold the suit property. 21. He further denies that Sri.Nagendra is one of the Directors of the trust and the resolution books from the year 1977-87 was in the custody of said Nagendra. Witness has further answered that from the year 1981-85, he was the trustee and again from 2004, he is inducted as trustee. He denied that Ex.P.25 is concocted. 22. As against the said evidence, brother of defendant No.3 is examined as D.W.1. He has deposed in line with the contents of written statement by filing an affidavit in lieu of his examination-in-chief and maintained that defendant No.1 had every right to alienate one of the suit properties in the name of defendant No.3. 23. In his cross-examination, he admits that before D.W.1 and his brother purchased the property, they were tenants in the same property. 24. He denied the trust being formulated by P. Hanumappa Setty. He also denied that in the year 1949, P. Hanumappa Setty formulated a trust. He admits that P. Hanumappa Setty and defendant No.1 had no children. He denied the reconstitution of the trust on 14.05.1951. He has answered that since the revenue entries stood in the name of defendant No.1, he believed that she is the owner of the suit property. 25. He also admits that there was a notice issued by the trust that not to purchase the suit property as it is the trust property. He has answered that since the revenue entries stood in the name of defendant No.1, he believed that she is the owner of the suit property. 25. He also admits that there was a notice issued by the trust that not to purchase the suit property as it is the trust property. He further admits that he has not replied to the notice and the properties purchased by him and his brother is worth more than Rs.5,00,000/- and which is further valued at the time of cross-examination. 26. Sri.H.Ramachandrappa is examined as D.W.2 on behalf of the defendants. He deposed before the Court that suit properties belonged to defendant No.1 and it is her property. 27. In his cross-examination, he answered that he is the resident of Tyagaraja Colony at Mulbagil. He has answered that at the time of Exs.D.1 and D.2; he has seen defendant No.1 for the first time. 28. Said D.W.2 is an attesting witness to the sale deed. He has denied the knowledge of the title of the suit property. Srinivasaiah is the deed writer of the sale deed which was executed between defendant No.1 and defendant Nos.3 and 4. He has stated that as per the instructions, he has written the sale deeds and he has identified the same. 29. In his cross-examination, he has answered that vendor and purchaser approached him for writing the sale deed and title documents were also brought to his notice and it is defendant No.1 who says that suit properties has got nothing do with trust and therefore, he prepared the sale deed in the veranda of the Taluk office. He denied the suggestion that knowing full well, he has wrongly written the sale deed. 30. Based on the aforesaid evidence, learned Trial Judge heard the arguments of the parties and decreed the suit. 31. Operative portion of the order reads as under: “The suit is decreed in part and with costs. The defendant No.1 is removed from the Trust i.e., Sri.Patchagiri Hanumappa Setty’s Jyothinagarapet, Vysya Hostel Trust. Further, it is decreed tha the suit properties are the properties of Sri.Patchagiri Hanumappa Setty’s Jyothinagarapete Vysya Hostel trust and the sale deed executed by the defendant No.1 in favour of the defendant Nos.3 and 4 on 05.03.1987 with regard to the suit properties do not bind the trust and consequently, it is set aside. Further, it is decreed tha the suit properties are the properties of Sri.Patchagiri Hanumappa Setty’s Jyothinagarapete Vysya Hostel trust and the sale deed executed by the defendant No.1 in favour of the defendant Nos.3 and 4 on 05.03.1987 with regard to the suit properties do not bind the trust and consequently, it is set aside. The plaintiffs are at liberty to apply for final decree for appointment of new trustees. The plaintiffs claim for perpetual injunction is hereby dismissed.” 32. Being aggrieved by the same, defendant Nos.3 and 4 have filed the present appeal on following grounds: That the judgment and decree passed by the court below is illegal, invalid, and capricious either under law or on facts and circumstances of the case. The court below has totally erred in decreeing the suit. Where the plaintiffs has sought for relief of direction from the court to remove the defendant 1 and 2 from the alleged trust, but the plaintiffs have not made the trust as party in the suit which is a proper and necessary party. As such in the absence of the trust as a party to the suit the suit itself is not maintainable; consequently the relief granted by the court is nonest in the eye of law. The trial court has failed to consider that the trust is necessary party, and in the absence of the trust as a party no reliefs as claimed by the plaintiffs in the suit can be granted, and time and again it has been held by the apex court in several decisions that when the case is with respect to management of trust and its properties the trust is necessary party, hence the impugned judgment and decree is highly illegal and capricious. The court below has failed to appreciate the contentions of contesting the defendants/appellants that they are the bonafide purchaser of the suit schedule property from the 1st defendant wherein the defendants 3 and 4 before purchasing the suit schedule property verified the records from the concerned authorities and confirmed that the suit schedule property stands in the name of 1st defendant then only the defendant 3 and 4 purchased the property. The court below ignoring the said crucial evidence adduced by the defendants and came to a wrong conclusion in decreeing the suit. The court below ignoring the said crucial evidence adduced by the defendants and came to a wrong conclusion in decreeing the suit. The court below has also erred in not accepting the evidence adduced by the defendants that defendants have taken specific contention though under ExP2 the 1 defendant is said to have been donated the suit property in favour of the trust but in the absence of the other party to accept it should be held that it was not acted upon or she has not conveyed any title in favour of the trust. The court below has also failed to consider when the 1st defendant has executed a sale deed in favour of defendants 3 and 4 of 5/3/1987 and further defendants have contended that only after verification they have purchased the property from the 1st defendant, who has not contested the suit weather it is a property transferred to the trust or it was retained by the 1 defendant the burden is on the plaintiff to prove that the suit property is trust property, without examining the 1st defendant and without producing the sufficient material before the court it can not be said that the suit property belongs to the trust. The court below has also committed a serious error in interpreting section 92 sub section 1 under clause (a) & (b) in relaying on the dictum of Hon'ble supreme court in AIR 1975 SC 371 which is not applicable to the present case hence the plaintiffs have failed to establish that the relief sought for by the plaintiffs for removal of 1st and 2nd defendant from trust as trustees. Viewed from any angle the impugned Judgment and Decree passed by the Trial Court is highly illegal, erroneous and arbitrary, either under law or on facts and circumstances of the case.” 33. During the pendency of the appeal, appellant No.2 died and his legal representatives are brought on record. 34. Learned counsel for the appellants reiterating the grounds urged in the appeal memorandum vehemently contended that defendant No.1 being the owner of the property and having regard to the fact that sale deed has been executed by defendant No.1 which is a registered document, decreeing of the suit by the Trial Court has resulted in miscarriage of justice and sought for allowing the appeal and dismissal of the suit. 35. 35. He would also contend that the contentions urged on behalf of the appellant that on 14.05.1951, there was a reconstitution of the trust and the suit properties have been made over to the trust and possession has been handed over to the trust is not proved by the plaintiffs and therefore, decreeing of the suit has resulted in miscarriage of justice. 36. He would further contend that admittedly, after the death of P. Hanumappa Setty, defendant No.1 being the only legal representative, succeeded to the entire suit property and couple had no children. Therefore, defendant No.1 was the absolute owner of the suit property and as such, she had every right to alienate the suit properties in favour of the appellants which has been ignored by the learned Trial Judge and sought for allowing the appeal. 37. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents supports the impugned judgments. 38. He would further contend that trust deed dated14.05.1951 shows that suit properties are made over to the trust and possession has also been handed over by the said registered document. 39. He would further contend that only life interest was created in favour of defendant No.1 under the said trust deed for the maintenance of defendant No.1 and therefore, alienation made by defendant No.1 as the owner of the property in favour of defendant Nos.3 and 4 has resulted in not convening any right, title and interest in respect of the suit property which has been rightly appreciated by the learned Trial Judge while decreeing the suit and thus, sought for dismissal of the appeal. 40. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. 41. On such perusal of the material on record, following points would arise for consideration: a. Whether the plaintiffs have made out that defendant No.1 had no power to alienate the suit properties in favour of defendant Nos.3 and 4? b. Whether the defendant Nos.3 and 4 would establish that defendant No.1 being the owner of the property, the sale deed executed by her in their favour is valid? c. Whether the impugned judgment is suffering from legal infirmity and perversity and thus calls for interference? d. What order? REG. POINT Nos.1 TO 3: 42. These points are taken up together for discussion to avoid the repetition of facts. 43. c. Whether the impugned judgment is suffering from legal infirmity and perversity and thus calls for interference? d. What order? REG. POINT Nos.1 TO 3: 42. These points are taken up together for discussion to avoid the repetition of facts. 43. In the case on hand, suit property earlier belonged to P. Hanumappa Setty. During his lifetime, one property was given to trust and after his death, suit property and several other properties belonging to the family were made over to the trust. 44. However, for the maintenance of defendant No.1, life interest was created in favour of the trust properties whereby defendant No.1 was entitled to let out the premises or lease out the same to maintain herself till her life time. 45. This is evident from the trust deed itself which was registered on 14.05.1951 which is a registered document. On perusal of the same, it is crystal clear that the certified copy of the said trust deed is marked at Ex.P.2. 46. On perusal of the Ex.P.2, it is crystal clear that life interest was alone created in favour of defendant No.1 in the said trust deed for which defendant No.1 is a party knowing fully well about the said clause in the said trust deed, she let out the premises to defendant Nos.3 and 4 at the first instance, which was a valid transaction as per Ex.P.2 itself. However, under the trust deed, there was no power of alienation granted to defendant No.1 by the trust deed in favour of third parties. 47. Defendant Nos.3 and 4 being the tenants of the suit property, managed to get the sale deed executed by defendant No.1 in their favour ignoring the contents of the registered trust deed wherein there was no power for defendant No.1 to alienate the suit property. 48. No doubt, defendant Nos.3 and 4 pleaded that they purchased the suit property as the revenue entries in respect of the suit properties was standing in the name of defendant No.1. 49. It is settled principle of law and requires no emphasis that mere revenue entries would not create any right, title or interest in favour of defendant No.1 for alienation of the suit properties in favour of defendant Nos.3 and 4. 50. 49. It is settled principle of law and requires no emphasis that mere revenue entries would not create any right, title or interest in favour of defendant No.1 for alienation of the suit properties in favour of defendant Nos.3 and 4. 50. The resolution books that has been placed on record and other meeting materials placed on record would go to show that there was an objection with regard to alienation of the property and a legal notice was also issued to defendant Nos.3 and 4 not to buy the property from defendant No.1 as it is the trust property. 51. Admittedly, D.W.1 who is examined on behalf of defendant No.1, has specifically answered that he did not choose to reply the legal notice. When there is a specific mention in the legal notice that it is the trust which is the owner of the property and not defendant No.1, defendant Nos.3 and 4 without verifying the title to the suit property in defendant No.1, purchasing the same were at their peril in getting the sale deed executed in their name. As such, they cannot contend that they are the bonafide purchasers of suit property. 52. Further, fact of revenue entries would not confer the title in defendant No.1 especially when the property was already made over to the trust by way of Ex.P.2 in the year 1951 itself. 53. From the year 1968, defendant Nos.3 and 4 were in the suit property as tenants. Therefore, it must be presumed that they were knowing what is the title of defendant No.1 and having purchased the property without proper title, decree of the Trial Court in holding that defendant No.1 be removed from the trust and alienation made by her in favour of defendant Nos.3 and 4 is not binding on the trust is just and proper which requires no further interference by this Court in this appeal even after reappreciation of material on record. Accordingly, point No.1 is answered in affirmative and point Nos.2 and 3 are answered in negative. REG. POINT No.4: 54. In view of the findings of this Court on point Nos.1 to 3 as above, following: ORDER i. Appeal is meritless and hereby dismissed. ii. No order as to costs.