The Court considered the wishes of the founders, the best interests of the institution, and the competency of the claimants, including the descendants through females, in making the appointment of the trustee.

1. These four appeals all arise out of the same suit. It related to the right of trusteeship of the durgas of Killai and Nawabpet in Chidambaram taluk and was originally filed by the sixteenth defendant (who is now dead) claiming to have been nominated by the last holder Mohideen Shah who died in 1905. That case was found against by the Subordinate Judge who therefore dismissed the suit. There was an appeal to the High Court A. S. No. 168 of 1910. That appeal was disposed of by Sankaran Nair and Spencer, JJ., in 1914. They agreed with the finding of the lower Court that the plaintiff was not nominated by the last holder but held that the suit need not be dismissed, and that fresh appointment can be made by the Civil Court and they reversed the decree and sent the case back with a direction that all other interested parties should be made parties to the suit. After the case went back, the original plaintiff compromised the matter and did not prosecute the suit any further. Four other persons then became plaintiffs; Of these the first plaintiff was ultimately appointed as Manager of the Killai durga and the second plaintiff was appointed for the durga of Nawabpet by the Subordinate Judge. Against his decree, the above mentioned appeals have been preferred. During the pendency of these appeals the first plaintiff died. So that so far as the durga of Killai is concerned, the question now before this Court is not whether the order of the lower Court should be confirmed or should be varied but whether fresh appointment should be made by this Court. This Court therefore is now in the position of an original Court trying the suit for the first time.

2. The various claimants who are now putting forward their various claims before us are : (1) the second plaintiff who in addition to his being manager of the durga of Nawabpet also claims to be appointed to the durga of Killai. He also says, that, if it is considered undesirable that the same man should be manager of two durgas, he would prefer to be appointed as manager of Killai durga which is bigger than the other durga at Nawabpet, and he is now willing to give up the benefit of the order of the lower Court.

(2) fourth plaintiff who is the sisters son of the last holder Moideen Shah. His mother is the fourth defendant in the case.

(3) twelfth defendant. He is the son of another sister, fifth defendant (deceased), of the last holder, a younger brother of the first plaintiff who died during the pendency of the appeals.

(4) sixth defendant who belongs to a branch collateral to the last holder and is a brother of the sixteenth defendant who originally filed the suit.

3. These four are all the males now putting forward claims for the offices. The original third plaintiff who appeared by Vakil in this Court does not appear before us either by an Advocate or in person and does not urge his claim. Then there are certain females also asserting their claims. These are (1) the fourth defendant. As already mentioned she is the sister of the last holder and mother of the fourth plaintiff, (2) eighth and ninth defendants. These are sisters of the twelfth defendant. They are put together merely because they appear by the same advocate and put forward the same arguments. They even claim the office jointly, (3) second defendant. She is the widow of the last holder but through her father she belongs to the same branch as that of the sixth defendant being his sister.

4. In considering the claims of these various claimants it is said in some of the decisions and text books that the wishes of the founders may be considered by the Court. But subject to this no party has any absolute right to be appointed to the office. The Court has got to make the appointment in the best interests of the institution. This is practically conceded by all the parties vide Shahar Banoo v. Aga Mahomed Jaffer Bindaneem I.L.R. (1906) IndAp 46 : 34 Cal. 118 Atimannessa Bibi v. Abdul Sobhan I.L.R. (1915) Cal. 467 and Phatma Bi v