1. The appeal has been argued before us on the basis that the 1st defendant at the thus when the promissory note in question was executed by him was a trustee of the temple concerned in the suit. The 2nd defendant was appointed trustee about 2 years before the institution of the suit. The plaintiff has obtained a personal decree against the 1st defendant. But he says that he is also entitled to a decree as against the temple property, that is to say to a direction that the amount due to him may be obtained out of the trust property. But the lower Courts have held that inasmuch as the 1st defendant did not sign the promissory note as manager all that the plaintiff was entitled to was a decree against him personally. The suit as framed however appears to be not merely on the basis of the promissory note but also for debt and issues were framed raising the questions whether the debt was contracted for the benefit of the temple, whether the note was supported by consideration and whether the plaintiff was entitled to any relief against the trust property. If the plaintiff be entitled to any relief against the trust property, the mere fact that the 1st defendant in executing the