Horace Owen Compton Beasley, Kt., C.J.

1. This is an appeal from a judgment of Mr. Justice Waller. He had before him a suit claiming reliefs against seven defendants. The 1st defendant was one of the trustees of a: temple in the Chingle put District and the reliefs sought against him were his removal from trusteeship, an account and various other reliefs which are properly to be obtained under Section 73 of the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act. It was alleged that he had badly administered the trust and that, as a result of the maladministration, some property belonging to the temple and set out in the plaint got into the hands of the other defendants. The only defendant appealing here is the 2nd defendant and he is admittedly the alienee of the most valuable of all the trust property and that property is wholly situate in Madras. It is quite true that the suit has all the appearances of a suit under the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act. The sanction of the Endowments Board has been obtained and the reliefs sought are, as already pointed out, reliefs which are properly obtainable under that Act. But something happened in the Lower Court. Mr. Narasimha Aiyar who was