cHorwill, J.

1. The suit out of which this appeal arises was one under the general law by the trustees in office against ex-trustees for an account of their trusteeship, with allegations of misfeasance, non-feasance, and malfeasance.

2. The principal question that falls for decision is whether Section 73 of the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act bars such, a suit. The learned Subordinate Judge gave a precis of each of the numerous cases cited before him and then proceeded to draw his general conclusions. They were that the suit could not be brought in its present form and that the remedy of the plaintiffs was to get the accounts audited and to sue for the amount shown to be due. The learned District Judge in appeal did not attempt to discuss the various decisions. He says:

I have been taken through a long chain of decisions on both sides and the matter is exceedingly intricate and difficult to come to a conclusion upon as slight differences in the facts of each case appear really to have determined the conclusion in the particular case. But the final effect of my consideration of the matter leads me to the conclusion that the correct proposition to follow is that of Mr. Jus