1. The question argued in this appeal is whether in a suit under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure for the removal of a trustee and the settlement of a scheme, the District Judge was right in dismissing the suit with costs as regards the 3rd and 4th defendants who had teen joined by the plaintiffs on the ground that the lease granted to them by the trustees of the charity, defendants Nos. 1 and 2, was a breach of trust. It is well settled that in a suit under Section 92, a decree for possession could not be given against persons in the position of defendants Nos. 3 and 4, and it seems to follow that the contention of the appellants that a mere declaration might be given against them is unsustainable, as, if any relief could properly be given against them in such a suit. There is no reason why it should be limited to a mere declaration and should not award possession as well. The question then is whether they were properly made parties by the plaintiffs as no reliefs were obtainable against them. The decisions in Ghazaffar Husain Khan v. Yawar Husain (1905) I.L.R. 28 A 112 and in Collector of Poona v. Bai Chanchal Bai (1911) I.L.R. 35 B 470 were cited on one side and