Leach, C.J.

1. This appeal arises out of a suit for an account and other reliefs instituted by certain trustees against their co-trustees on the Original Side of this Court. In Royapuram, Madras, is an Indian Hindu temple known as Subrahmanyaswami Koil, which belongs, according to the pleadings, to the Pattinava sect of the Hindus. The plaintiffs case is that in 1922 a meeting of the members of the community was held at Royapuram at which the plaintiffs and defendants 1 to 3 were elected trustees for the purpose of collecting subscriptions for the improvement of the temple, for the performance of the rites therein and for the conduct of festivals and other cognate matters, with power to spend the collections on these objects. It is common ground that this meeting was held and that the plaintiffs and defendants 1 to 3 were elected trustees for these purposes. The contesting defendants, defendants 2 and 3, however, aver that the duties of the trustees were not confined to the temple and say that they were also given authority to collect and spend for the good of the community in general and for purposes of general utility. The plaintiffs allege that defendants 1 and 2 were acting as the managing trustees and were throughout in charge of all the moneys collected and the accounts, defendants 1 and 2 being the only literate members of the Board. Defendant 3 admittedly never took any part in the management of the affairs of the trust, and as defendant 1 died after the institution of the suit, the case is really confined to the question of the liability of defendant 2. The plaintiffs further allege that from 1922 to the date of the suit, large sums of money were collected by defendants 1 and 2 who utilised them for their own purposes and suppressed the accounts. The contesting defendants deny that there is any truth in the allegation that defendants 1 and 2 utilised the trust money for their own purposes or that they suppressed the accounts. It is clear from their written statement, however, that defendant 1 and 2 did participate in the management of the trust and are liable to account, and the learned trial Judge so held. Accordingly he directed that accounts should be taken from 9th November 1925 (the date from which the defendants admit the collections began) and referred the case to the Official Referee for the purpose.

2. It is not in dispute that this is a public trust and it is conceded that defendant 2 is liable to account. But it is said that the decision of the learned trial Judge is erroneous for two reasons: (1) because the suit could not be instituted without the sanction of the Advocate General under Section 92, Civil P.C., and (2) because the learned trial Judge did not decide issue 4 before referring the suit to the Official Referee. Issue 4 is as follows: "What, if any, were the accounts maintained for the collections and by whom?". The argument with regard to this issue is based on the contention that the plaintiffs are also accounting parties. Before the learned trial Judge there was no suggestion that they should also be made liable to account; the only question in this connexion was with regard to the liability of defendant 2. The learned trial Judge was therefore justified in adopting the course which he did.

3. The contention with regard to the necessity for the prior approval of the Advocate-General needs more consideration as it is said that the decision of this Court in Appanna v. Narasingha A.I.R. 1922 Mad 17 is no longer good law. In that case it was held by a Full Bench of five Judges that a suit by a trustee of a public, charitable or religious trust against a co-trustee for accounts does not fall within Section 92, Civil P.C. and may be brought without the sanction of the Advocate-General. It is said that this decision has been set at nought by the judgment of their Lordships of the Privy Council in Abdur Rahim v. Abu Mahomed Barkat Ali A.I.R. 1928 P.C. 16 and that of this Court in 58 Mad 988.3 I c