The central legal point established in the judgment is that the application of Section 92 of the Civil Procedure Code depends on the nature of the relief sought and the capacity in which the plaintiffs are suing.

Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.

1. This reference arises out of an appeal to this Court from a decree passed by the Subordinate Judge of South Kanara, dismissing a suit instituted by the Tirumalai-Tirupathi Devasthanams Committee against the trustees of the Sri Venkataramana Devara Bhandaram, a temple situate at Moolki within the jurisdiction of the Subordinate Court. The Tirupati temple, which lies a little over a hundred miles from Madras, is one of the famous temples of South India and is held in the greatest veneration by all Hindus. From time immemorial the trustees of the Moolki temple have maintained therein a box for the reception of offerings, usually of money or jewels, which devotees wish to make to the deity of the Tirupati temple. The duties of the respondents in this connection are to see that the collection box is properly kept, from time to time to count the offerings placed therein and then to hold them in safe custody until such time as they can conveniently be delivered to the trustees of the Tirupati temple. In days gone by, a deputation of devout Hindus was sent from Moolki to Tirupati for this purpose. The members of the deputation made the journey from Moolki to Tirupati as best they could, on foot or in carts. For many years a deputation has not been sent and the offerings have remained with the trustees of the Moolki temple. The suit was to compel the defendants to render an account of the offerings made since the last remittance and to deliver them to the plaintiffs. With regard to gifts in kind the plaintiffs asked for delivery of the articles themselves or their value. In the trial Court the case proceeded on the basis that the defendants are trustees of the offerings and the learned Judges who have made this reference have expressly held that they are trustees.

2. The Subordinate Judge considered that the suit fell within Section 92 of the Civil Procedure Code of 1908, and that as the sanction of the Advocate-General to its institution had not been obtained it could not be maintained. If the judgment of this Court in Janaki Bai v. Tiruchitrambala Vinayakar (1935)69MLJ291 is to be deemed to embody a correct statement of the law, the suit would require the sanction of the Advocate-General. Stated broadly, the decision there was that in deciding whether the sanction of the Advocate-General was required, the Court had to look at the reliefs which were sought, without reference to the character in which the plaintiffs sued. This decision was criticised by Varadachariar, J., in Shanmukham Chetti v. Govinda Chetli I.L.R. (1938) Mad. 39 and the learned Judges in making this reference have indicated that in their opinion the criticism is well founded. Consequently, they have referred for the decision of a Full Bench the following question,

whether a suit by the general trustee of a public temple against the trustee of a fund contributed by devotees, for being made over to that temple, praying for a decree directing accounts and inquiries and for the recovery of the amounts to be ascertained on such accounts being taken, falls within Section 92 of the Civil Procedure Code and requires the sanction of the Advocate-General for its institution.

The effect of Section 92 has often been debated and the reported decisions are not in harmony. To discuss them all would be a most laborious task and would serve no useful purpose. The cases to which we propose to refer sufficiently disclose the conflict and therefore are ample for the purpose of forming our own conclusions. We will take them in the order of date, but before embarking on the discussion it will be useful to set out the provisions of Section 92 and to indicate its relation to the corresponding provisions of earlier Codes. The section now reads as follows:

(1) In the case of any alleged breach of any express or constructive trust created for public purposes of a chartitable or religious nature, or where the direction of the Court is deemed necessary for