JUDGMENT

Abdul Hadi, J.

1. This originating summons has been taken out by the plaintiff beneficiary of a trust . created under a registered will dated 29-8-1970 executed by the plaintiff's mother, the deceased K. Andalammal, who died on 21-10-1983. According to paragraph 12 of the petition, this petition is filed seeking determination of the following questions:

(a) Whether the defendants (1 and 2) who are the trustees appointed under the said Will are not liable to render an account to the plaintiff of the income and expenditure relating to the suit property situate at New Door No. 16, Peria Uthandi Street, Madras from 21-10-1983 till the date of the plaint;

(b) Whether directions to the defendants 1 and 2 be not given, to pay the plaintiff or to the defendants 3 to 5 who are the children to the plaintiff the surplus amount held by them;

(c) Whether directions to the defendants 1 and 2 to deliver the suit property to the defendants 3, 4 and 5 be not given; and

(d) Whether the liability of the defendants 1 and 2 to account for the plaintiff's one third share of the Gold, diamond jewellary and silverware left by the testator, Andalammal be not determined.

2. Under the said Will, the testator set apart the above said property at No. 16, Peria Uthandi Street, Madras-1 for the benefit of her daughter, the plaintiff and plaintiff's children, viz., defendants 3, 4 and 5. The defendants 1 and 2 are the son and husband of another daughter of the abovesaid Andalammal. They were appointed as trustees to hold the above-said property and the income therefrom in trust for the use and benefit of the plaintiff and her abovesaid children. The will directed the said trustees to realise the rents and profits from the said property and reserve one half thereof for the payment of taxes and repair charges and apply the other half for the maintenance of the plaintiff and her children. Under the Will, the trustees were directed to keep account of the rents and profits from the said suit property and disbursements therefrom and open bank account in which the rents were to be deposited and the trustees were directed to invest the surplus of interest. Further after the life time of the plaintiff, the trustees were directed to hand over the above said property absolutely to the plaintiff's children after the last of her children attained the age of 21 years.

3. The present age of the plaintiff's children, viz., the defendants 3, 4 and 5 are 35, 34 and 33 respectively. So, all of them had long back reached the age of 21 years.

4. The grievance of the plaintiff as shown in the plaint is that the plaintiff or her children had not received any part of the rental income of the suit property from the trustees viz., the defendants 1 and 2, ever since 21-10-1983, i.e., from the date of death of Andalammal till date, and that the defendants 1 and 2 had not rendered any account of the income and expenditure form the suit property, that the plaintiff had not recieved the share of the jewellary and a silver vessels, left by Andalammal and that inspite of repeated demands by the plaintiff, the said defendants failed and neglected to comply with the said demands. The plaintiff finally caused a notice to be issued on 12-9-1987 calling upon the defendants 1 and 2 to furnish accounts and to take expeditious steps for probating the aforesaid Will, and yet the defendants 1 and 2 have not complied with the demands.

5. The plaintiff has also executed a deed dated 30-9-1987 evidencing her to surrender of all her rights in the suit property; Such a surrender does not require any deed in writing since it will not amount to a transfer of her interest in any immovably property. She had only a right to receive a portion of rent realised by the trustees.

6. Thus the plaintiff's grievance is that even though nearly six years have passed since the death of Andalammal, the said trustees have neither paid any share in the income from the said property to the plaintiff and her children nor rendered any account of the income and expenditure of the said property to them and that even when the plaintiff has surrendered her right, the defendants 1 and 2 have not handed over the suit property absolutely to the plaintiff's children, viz., the defendants 3, 4 and 5 as enjoined in the above said Will. With these allegations, the plaintiff has filed this originating summons.

5. The defendants 1 and 2 in their written statement inter alia states that the probate of the above said Will was granted by order dated 25-2-1988 in O.P. No. 628 of 1987 on the file of this Court, that the Will specifically prohibits the plaintiff to transfer her rights over the suit property that the Will directs handing over the possession of the suit property to the plaintiff's children only after the plaintiff's death and that any surrender of rights by the plaintiff is not valid and that therefore, this originating summons is not maintainable under Order 13 of the Original Side Rules.

6. Now the first question is whether the questions raised in this suit could be determined under Order 13, Rule 1 of the Original Side Rules. It has been held in Lt.Col.J v. Dhairyam v. Dr. George Desraj Dhairyam (SIC) 1 M.L.J. 431 : 80 L.W, 272 that the (SIC)der Order 13, is primarily designed to (SIC)ions of law or discretion arising upon facts substantially not in dispute, and that however if the defence raised is frivolous and designedly intended to drive the parties to a suit, the Court will decide that question under the said Rules. Admittedly, despite the terms of the Will, the trustees, viz., the defendants 1 and 2 have not paid anything to the plaintiff and to her children viz., the defendants 3 and 5 from and out of the income of the suit property, even though six years have passed since the death of the testator viz., Andalammal. Even the written statement does not say as to why nothing was paid so far to the plaintiff and to her children. Under the terms of the Will the trustees of the suit property are directed to keep an account of the rents and profits of the suit property and disbursements therefrom. But, despite several demands, by the plaintiff, the defendants 1 and 2 have not rendered accounts of the rents and profits to the plaintiff. When I put a question to the learned Counsel for the defendants 1 and 2 as to whether the defendant 1 and 2 were maintaining such accounts as per the terms of the Will, he submitted that they were keeping accounts. Hence, I directed them to produce the said accounts book, and one account book was produced. However, on glancing through it. I feel that the genuiness and correctness of the entries therein cannot be gone into in this summary proceeding. However, under the Will, the defendants 1 and 2 have to open a bank account as stated above, and to my question, the learned Counsel appearing for the defendants 1 and 2 admitted that no such bank account was opened by the trustees. Further even though probate was granted by order dated 25-2-1988, the defendants 1 and 2 have not chosen to file the accounts into Court till 31-12-1988, i.e., the date of the written statement as admitted by themselves in paragraph 3 of their written statement. All these features indicate breaches of trust committed by the defendants 1 and 2. The trustees were enjoined to keep accounts and the beneficiaries are not paid their share of income from the trust property as per the directions contained in the trust document. Further the trustees are enjoined to keep accounts and the beneficiaries in the trust document have demanded several times their share of income and rendition of accounts and yet the trustees did not comply with the demand. In the circumstances, it is clear that the defence raised in this case is frivolous and designedly intended to drive the parties to a suit and hence, this Court is entitled to exercise its jurisdiction under Order 13, Rule 1 of the Original Side Rules.

7. In the circumstances, I further hold that on that first question mention in paragraph 12(a) of the plaint that the defendants 1 and 2 are liable to render account to the plaintiff of the income and expenditure from the suit property from 21-10-1983 till they hand over the property to plaintiff's children. I further hold on the second question set out in paragraph 12(b) of the plaint that as per the terms of the abovesaid Will, the defendants 1 and 2 are directed to pay the plaintiff and defendants 3 to 5 one half of the net income from the suit property after payment of taxes and public charges and meeting the cost or repairs, every year ever since 21-10-1983, the date of death of the founder the trust viz., Andalammal.

8. So far as the third question, set out in Paragraph 12(c) of the plaint is concerned no doubt the above said Will says that the suit property shall be handed over to the plaintiff's children only on the death of the plaintiff. However, the learned Counsel appearing for the plaintiff brought to my notice the following passage in Lewin on Trusts, 16th Edition (Page 121) which runs as follows:

The principle is well settled in relation to Wills, that where there is a gift to some person for life, and the death of the first taker, the gift in remainder is construed as a gift taking effect on the death of the first taker or any earlier failure or determination of his interest, so that the person entitled in remainder will take immediately on such an earlier failure or determination and will not be kept waiting until the death of the first taker.

The learned Counsel for the plaintiff further cited a decision reported in M.K. Lingarkar v. S.B. Kesarkar A.I.R. 1972 Bom.100 at 102 where in it was held that the English law laying down the abovesaid doctrine of acceleration is applicable in India also. The learned Counsel also brought to my notice Section 9 of the Indian Trust Act, 1882 which runs as follows:

A proposed beneficiary may renounce his interest under the trust by disclaimer addressed to the trustee, or by setting up, with notice of the trust, a claim inconsistent therewith.

9. Thus it clear that any beneficiary may renounce his interest under the trust by simply addressing the disclaimer to the trustee. So, there is no necessity to have any duly stamped and registered document for renouncement of such interest, as claimed by the learned Counsel appearing for the defendants 1 and 2. Even generally a surrender need not be in writing (vide Venkattapa v. Golla A.I.R. 1916 Mad. 108 and Patta v. Venkatta A.I.R. 1930 Mad 1. 121 L.W. 765 The contention of the learned Counsel appearing for the defendants 1 and 2 that the deed dated 30-9-1987 executed by the plaintiff is neither sufficiently stamped nor registered, will be of no avail, because the said deed only 'confirms and declares' the surrender already made. It only says in its operative portion thus:

I do hereby confirm and declare that since I have surrendered my right to receive the rent from the trustees as provided under the Will, my two sons, (1) C. Srinivasalu alias C.S. Gupta, (2) C. Ramanujam and (3) my daughter Smt. A. Dhanalakshmi shall be at liberty to take possession of the property from the Trustees.

Since thus, it is only a record of the past event of surrender, there is no necessity for registration of the said document, Section 17(1)(b) of the I Registration Act, not being attracted. As a record of past event, it is also duly stamped. So, there can be no objection in this regard from defendants 1 and 2. Here again, it is clear that the defence of the defendants 1 and 2 is only frivolous.

10. The learned Counsel for the defendants 1 and 2 also argued that in view of the provision in the Will prohibiting the plaintiff to "sell mortgage or otherwise alienate" the suit property, the above said surrender by the plaintiff in favour of her children will not be valid. First of all, the said surrender will not at all amount to an alienation, sale or mortgage. (Vide Kuppuswamy v. Arumugam Secondly, it is clear that what the testator intended by introducing the said clause of prohibition in the Will is only to prohibit the plaintiff from transferring the very property itself (and not her own interest in it) to any third party and not to prohibit the plaintiff from making a disclaimer in favour of her own children so as to accelerate their interest already given under the same Will.

11. One other argument advanced by the learned Counsel for the defendants 1 and 2 will also show that their defence is frivolous and designedly intended to drive the parties to a suit. Under the terms of the Will, the suit property has to be handed over absolutely to the plaintiff's children after the last of her children attain the age of 21 years, and the contention of the learned Counsel for the defendants is that the possibility of the plaintiff giving birth to another child is not ruled out and that therefore, the time for handing over the property to the plaintiff's children has not yet come. This contention deserves no merit. The plaintiff has already completed 57 years and it cannot be safely inferred that she would give birth to any further child.

12. In the circumstances, I hold that the defendants 1 and 2 are liable to hand over the suit property to the defendants 3 to 5. I direct them to do so immediately without any further delay.

13. No argument was placed before me regarding the last question in relation to the jewels and silver articles and hence I do not pass any order on that question.

14. In the result, the suit is decreed accordingly in relation to the prayers contained in paragraphs 12(a) to (c) and the suit is dismissed in regard to the prayer contained in paragraph 12(d) of the plaint. In view of the above referred to attitude of the defendants 1 and 2, I also direct them to pay the costs of the suit to the plaintiff.