Judgement

Consolidated Appeal (No. 49 of 1927) from three interlocutory orders of the High Court (January 8, March 26, and 31, 1926) varying orders of the District Judge of Hooghly.

The pro forma respondents Nos. 2-7 instituted a suit under ss. 92 and 93 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 1908, in the District Court against the respondent No. 1, the mahant or trustee of a temple, alleging breaches of trust, misappropriation of the temple properties, and neglect of duty. The plaintiffs prayed that the property belonging to the temple might be ascertained, a declaration that certain property claimed by the defendant was temple property, for the removal of

Law Rep. 55 Ind. App. 131 ( 1927- 1928)

Benoy Krishna Mukherjee V. Satish C handra Giri 299

the defendant from being mahant, and other relief, including the appointment of a receiver of the trust estate. The defendant by his defence admitted that certain properties specified in schedules attached to the plaint were temple properties, but contended that other properties so specified belonged to him.

The present appellants were subsequently added as plaintiffs, and upon their application under Order XL., r. 1, the District Judge appointed