Judgement

Consolidated appeal (No. 63 of 1922) from a judgment and two decrees of the High Court (November 13, 1919) affirming with a variation a judgment and two decrees of the Subordinate Judge of Kumbakonam.

The suit was brought by the respondents under s. 92 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, with the consent of the Advocate-General, for a declaration that the respondents were not rightly appointed trustees of a chattiram and that in any case they should be removed from being trustees. They further prayed for a declaration that the chattiram constituted a public charity with properties endowed to it set out in schedules to the plaint.

The facts sufficiently appear from the judgment of the Judicial Committee.

The Subordinate Judge, upon an issue whether the plaintiffs were so interested as to be entitled under

s. 92 to maintain the suit, held that they were so interested; he was of opinion that the chattiram was a public charity. He held that the appointment of the respondents was invalid, and that certain of the properties only were endowed to the charity under the will of Swaminatha. In the result he directed that a scheme should be framed for the management of the charity, and subsequently made a decree approving the scheme settled.

Upon appeal to the High Court the decrees were affirmed subject to modification. The learned judges (Abdur Rahim and Burn JJ.) in affirming the decision that the plaintiffs were entitled to maintain the suit under s. 92 said "It has been ruled by a Full Bench of this Court in Boidyo Gauranga Sahu v. Sudevi Mata (( 1917) I. L. R. 40 M. 612.), that the heirs of the founder have considerable interest in the maintenance of the charity, and the Hindu law gives them the right to nominate trustees in the case of a vacancy, and in the absence of any provision in the deed of endowment for the appointment of trustees. In our opinion therefore the Full Bench decision of this Court in Ramachandra Aiyar v. Parameswaran Unni (I. L. R. 42 M. 360.) does not preclude us from holding that the plaintiffs, having regard to the facts proved in the case, have an interest within the meaning of s. 92 of the Civil Procedure Code sufficient to enable them to maintain the suit."

It was held further that Suri Ayyar was not competent to appoint trustees under this will, and that in any case that the appointment was invalid as not being made bona fide in the interests of the trust. The decree of the Subordinate Judge was modified so far as it excluded certain properties from the endowment.

1924. May 19. Upjohn K.C. and Abdul Majid for the appellants. The respondents were not " persons interested in the trust" within the meaning of s. 92; their interest was remote and contingent, and not such a substantial interest as entitled them to sue under s. 92 Ramachandra Aiyar v. Parameswaran Unni (I. L. R. 42 M. 360.) and cases there mentioned. The judgment of the High Court was based upon Boidyo Gauranga Sahu v. Sudevi Mata (( 1917) I. L. R. 40 M. 612.), but that case is not consistent with the above-mentioned decision of the Full Bench. There was no evidence that the respondents ever used the chattiram. Further, as regards two-thirds of the income the gift was to charity generally, not to the chattiram; and consequently was too vague to be valid Runchordas Vandrawandas v. Parvatibhai. (( 1899) L. R. 26 I. A. 71.) The appointment of the respondents as trustees was valid, and there was no good ground for their removal.

De Gruyther K.C., Dube and Narasimham for respondent No. 2 were not called upon.

June 19. The judgment of their Lordships was delivered by

SIR JOHN EDGE. These are consolidated appeals by defendants in a suit, No. 1 of 1916, from two decrees, dated November 13, 1919, of the High Court at Madras, which affirmed with a trifling variation as to some property claimed, a preliminary decree, dated April 15, 1918, and a final decree, dated September 30, 1918, of the Subordinate Judge of Kumbakonam.

The suit relates to a ch