The head of a public religious trust is a trustee, not an absolute owner, of the institution's property. Courts may settle administrative schemes under Section 92 of the Civil Procedure Code to prevent maladministration, provided such schemes do not interfere with the institution's spiritual or ritual practices.

Lord Shaw.:-

These are consolidated appeals from a decree of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, dated 22nd December 1922, and made in appeals Nos. 164 and 199 of 1919 varying a decree of the Court of the District Judge of Ahmedabad, dated 14th August 1919.

The suit arises in this way. In 1804 a Hindu religious reformer, an ascetic coming from Northern India, named Swaminarayan, formed in the Bombay Presidency a new religious sect named after his own name. It consisted of men who had renounced the world, secondly of widows of men who had renounced the world, and thirdly of lay followers. He built two main temples one in the city of Ahmedabad and the other at Vadtal in the Kaira District, with the latter of which this suit is concerned. Amongst the buildings were a temple, a monastery, a theological and Sanskrit school and other accommodation for dwelling and residence.

The head of the establishment was the Acharya. The founder was worshipped as an incarnation of the God Krishna. It is undoubtedly true that according to the foundation the successors of the founder are similarly worshipped and are preceptors of the sect and heads of its spiritual and temporal affairs.

Abuses arose with regard to this institution, which has now become possessed of considerable wealth. A variety of disputes have arisen with regard to the management of the property of this institution. So far back as 1882 a suit was brought in the time of Viharilal the then Acharya, under S. 539 of the then Civil P. C. That section corresponds with S. 92 of the present Civil P. C., of 1908 which will be presently referred to.

"The position of the Acharya of the southern diocese," says Mr. Justice Marten in the present case, was considered "by this Court in 1885 by Sir Charles Sargent and Mr. Justice Birdwood. There the Court decided that the Acharya held the suit property upon trust for the maintenance of the temple. The judgments there describe him as a trustee or manager of it. The Court there rejected the argument that the temple was not a temple of the god because it was dedicated to the Acharya as spiritual head. It also held that the trust for the temple was a public religious trust."

During the regime of Laxminarayan, the successor of Viharilal as Acharya, serious disputes again broke out, and as the appellant's case briefly puts it,

"having had differences with his followers, he abdicated by a deed dated 16th April 1909."

Then Shripatiprasadji, defendant 1, became Acharya.

Fresh differences again arose, and on 31st October 1914, about 40 lay members of the sect brought the present suit.

The central point of all these disputes, was - put in a word - Whether the Acharya was, as representative of the god, the owner of the properties of the institution, "not accountable" for the

"management nor for the expenditure of the income, provided he does not apply it to any purpose other than what may fairly be regarded as in furtherance of the objects of the institution."

It is in this guarded manner that both in his case and argument the appellant asserts absolute and unrestricted ownership.

Further, in the course of the 1885 suit, the defence was raised that the temples were maintained for the sole use of the Swaminarayan sect and it was submitted that the sect was not a public body. The High Court overruled that contention. The same thing took place in the present case, and it is admitted that there is no appeal, and no appeal is made, against the decision that the institution and its property fall within the scope of charitable and religious trust property to which S. 92, Civil P. C. of 1908 applies.

S. 92 is as follows :

"In the case of any alleged breach of any express or constructive trust created for public purposes of a charitable or religious nature, or where the direction of the Court is deemed necessary for the administration of any such trust, the Advocate General, or two or more parsons having an interest in the trust and having obtained the consent in writing of th