TMI Blog1993 (1) TMI 313X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essor of the present appellant-Official Trustee had made an application to the High Court being Application No. 2043 of 1988, for permission to incur an expenditure of ₹ 6 lakhs for converting the existing tiled-roof of the marriage hall into RCC-roof and for providing other facilities therein, the application, the permission to incur other items of expenditure in the sums of ₹ 4,750/-, ₹ 9,620/- and ₹ 3,161.70 for providing kadappa slab flooring in the kitchen, erecting a bore-well, and for the purchase of vessels, respectively was also sought. The report which was filed along with the application stated that the marriage hall would fetch a higher income if it was modernised by converting the existing tiled-roof into RCC-roof and was provided with the other facilities. The report further gave an estimate of ₹ 6 lakhs prepared by the Assistant Engineer attached to the office of the Official Trustee, in respect of the said modernisation plan. Along with the report, the estimate and the plan of construction were also filed. From the report, it was seen that out of the total plinth area of 3822 s.f., only 2145 s.f. were sought to be covered with RCC-roof. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... received on 3.2.1989] that he had inspected the premises and that no matter however much improvement was carried out in the existing building, the net result would be neither appreciable nor would it yield maximum returns for the investments made, as the existing building was very old and in a dilapidated condition. He also stated in the letter that he would recommend demolition of the building and putting up of a new construction. He quoted his fees at 3-1/2 per cent of the total cost of the work. On 6.2.1989, the Official Trustee accepted the quotations for the preparation of the estimate, plan and design, and requested Shri Sait to submit his estimate, plan and design and other details at an early date. On 10.2.1989 again, the Official Trustee addressed another letter under the caption very urgent to Shri Sait whereby he sent the site-plan and the plan of the existing building along with a Xerox copy of the Will of Poonambalam Pillai for further action. In the meanwhile, on 2.2.1989, i.e., even prior to the receipt of the reply from Shri. Sait to the Official Trustee's letter of 12.1.1989 [which, as stated, as received on 3.2.1989], the Deputy Official Trustee submitted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the choultry for marriages earlier, that the allotments had been cancelled owing to the demolition and asked them to receive their refunds of the rent paid by them. 8. On 8.6.1989, a sum of ₹ 15,000/- was collected from Shri Sait on behalf of the contractor - S.A. Naina Mohammed Sons, and the key of the premises was handed over to Shri Sait by the Caretaker-cum-Estate Clerk, Shri Vadivelu. This was approved of by the Official Trustee on 9.6.1989. The work of the demolition of the marriage hall commenced on 8.6.1989 and the building was completely demolished. 9. On 13.6.1989, the Official Trustee filed an Application No. 2592 of 1989 before the High Court. Along with the application, he also filed a report prepared on 6.6.1989. In that application, the Official Trustee prayed for according permission to transfer a sum of ₹ 7 lakhs from the other trust estate, viz., that of Nagai Visalakshi Ammal [wife of Poonambalam Pillail to the trust estate of Poonambalam Pillai, to enable him to incur a total expenditure of ₹ 10 lakhs and for ratification of the action taken by him, in engaging Shri Sait as an architect and also for permission to pay the fees of the archi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rchitect, Shri Sait and for the construction of the choultry within ₹ 6 lakhs as sanctioned earlier. He further directed that expenditure in excess of ₹ 6 lakhs for building the hall should be borne by the Official Trustee himself. 11. The appellant-Official Trustee preferred an appeal against the said order to the Division Bench of the High Court which confirmed the same by the impugned decision. 12. As is clear from the admitted facts which have been narrated above, the earlier estimate of ₹ 6 lakhs given by the predecessor of the appellant was only for the replacement of the tiled-roof by R.C.C. slab. It was admittedly not for the demolition of the old building and construction of a new building in its place. It is not necessary to have the benefit of an expert opinion to appreciate that if for the replacement of the roof only, the cost as sanctioned by the Court itself was ₹ 6 lakhs, the cost for the demolition and construction of the new building estimated at ₹ 9.60 lakhs could not be said to be excessive. The estimate by all accounts appears to be reasonable. It does not also appear from the judgments of both the courts below that it was ev ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed that it was worth demolishing the old building and constructing a new one in its place as per the Development Control Rules of the Madras Municipal Corporation. This was the state of affairs on the files of the Official Trustee when the appellant took charge. In the circumstances, there was nothing unnatural on the part of the appellant to have specifically addressed a letter to one more architect, viz., Shri Sait pointing out to him, as he did, that it was proposed to convert the existing tiled-roof into RCC-roof, and requesting him to inspect the premises and submit a report specifically on the point as to whether the existing building could withstand the conversion of whether it had to be demolished and a new building constructed in its place, as suggested by Shri Gopi natha Rao. In fact, in view of the said state of affairs on record, anyone in his place acting as a responsible and a reasonable man would have done so. Since Shri Sait, the new architect gave his report after inspecting the premises that no matter however much improvement was carried out in the building, the net result would be neither appreciable nor would it yield maximum returns for the investments made as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e appellant are, as stated earlier, also influenced by the fact that the appellant had acted hastily in ordering the demolition of the old building and construction of the new one on the site. But, if for the reasons pointed out earlier, the bona fides of the appellant could not be doubted, the rapid steps taken by the appellant can only be consistent with his intention to act as early as possible in the interest of the trust, since by the new construction, the income of the trust was expected to be augmented. Further, the delay in construction was also likely to increase the cost of construction, apart from the loss of income that was to result from such delay. Hence, the so-called haste cannot be looked upon only with suspicion or as contributing only to the mala fide intentions on the part of the appellant. It is also consistent both with a diligent and responsible conduct on his part and with the best of his intentions to subserve the interests of the trust. 15. There is no doubt that the appellant knew that the earlier sanction obtained was only for replacement of the tiled-roof by the R.C.C. slab. The sanction was also for incurring only an expenditure of ₹ 6 lakhs a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sonal liability in the event of a breach of trust committed by him. The said section reads as follows: 15. Liability of Government. -(1) The Government shall be liable to make good all sums required to discharge any liability which the Official Trustee, if he were a private trustee, would be personally liable to discharge, except when the liability is one to which neither the Official Trustee nor any of his officers has in any way contributed or which neither he nor any of his officers could by the exercise of reasonable diligence have averted, and in either of those cases the Official Trustee shall not, nor shall the Government be subject to any liability. (2) Nothing in Sub-section (1) shall be deemed to render the Government or any Official Trustee appointed under this Act liable for anything done by or under the authority of any Official Trustee before the commencement of this Act. In view of these provisions, it is clear that the appellant could not be made personally liable for the breach of trust committed by him. Although it is disputed on behalf of respondent No. 3 that this point was urged before the Division Bench, it is stated on behalf of the appellant that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
