K.N.WANCHOO, J.

(1) THIS is an appeal by special leave against the judgment of the Mysore High court. Brief facts necessary for present purposes are these. There is a muth in village Davanur. A suit was brought in 1942 under S. 92 of the Civil Procedure Code for framing a scheme for the management of the muth. A decree was passed on 17/03/1948 by the High court by which a scheme was settled and two persons were appointed as joint managers thereunder. In 1959 the two managers were the appellant Madappa who was the chairman and the respondent Mahanthadevaru. On 12/05/1959, the respondent made an application to the Additional District Judge, Mysore, in which he said that there were more than 100 heads of cattle, belonging to the muth. But the estimated income of the properties was barely sufficient to meet the cost of worship of the deity and that no funds were available to maintain the cattle. He also said that it was unnecessary and expensive to incur the feeding charges and pay for the staff needed to take care of the cattle. He therefore prayed for an order for the sale of cattle as a measure of economy and practical utility. Further it appears that there were some lands belonging to the muth, which were being cultivated through servants. It was suggested in this application that the lands might be leased out for cultivation for one year by public auction for cash consideration in order to increase the income of the muth.

(2) ON this application, notice was issued to the appellant. He objected that the application had been made without consulting him. He also objected to the sale of the cattle, his reason being that their upkeep did not involve any expenditure and that they were necessary for the supply of milk to the muth and also as the chief source of manure for the lands. He also added that it would be sacrilegious to sell them away. He further objected to the leasing out of the lands of the muth year by year on the ground that according to the existing practice, lands of the muth were being cultivated and the crops harvested by the people of the village and there was no expenditure to the muth in that behalf. It appears that thereafter there were consultations between the two managers in order to meet the charge that the respondent had, not consulted the appellant before making the application. But the two managers were unable to agree.

(3) THEREUPON the Additional District Judge heard both parties, and by his order, dated 7/06/1960, directed that keeping hundreds of cattle with no proper arrangements to look after them would result in great loss to the muth. He therefore ordered that ten milch cows might be retained for the use of the muth for the purpose of milk and the remainder sold by public auction. As to cultivation of lands, the Additional District Judge was of the view that by the method of carrying on cultivation with the cooperation of villagers the muth stood to lose. He therefore ordered that the right of cultivation of lands belonging to the muth be sold for- cash from year to year.

(4) THEREUPON the appellant went in revision to the High court. Apart from challenging the correctness of the order made by the, Additional District Judge, the appellant further contended that the Additional District Judge had no jurisdiction to make such an order in view of the provisions of s. 92(1) cl. (f) of the Code of Civil Procedure. The High court held in view of paragraphs (11) and (12) in the scheme that the Additional District Judge had jurisdiction to pass the order which he did. Further it refused to interfere with the discretion exercised by the Additional, District Judge in the matter. The appellant then obtained special-, leave from this court; and that is how the matter has come up before us.

(5) THE only point urged on behalf of the appellant is that in view of s. 92(1), cl. (f) of the Code of Civil Procedure the Additional, District Judge had no jurisdiction to make the o