The main legal point established in the judgment is that the trustees' incompatibility and failure to cooperate were the fundamental cause of the temple's mismanagement, leading to their removal from office and the revision of the scheme of management to introduce a board of supervision with seven members.

1. The suit relates to Sri Parthasarathy Swami Temple situate in Triplicane, Madras. It is an ancient Vaishnavifee temple of Thengalai persuasion and held sacred and resorted to by large numbers of worshippers from all parts of South India. Sri Parthasarathy, the presiding deity in the temple, is Sri Krishna, as Parthasarathy the Charioteer of Arjuna, the Gitachariya, the Propounder of the Bhagavat Gita.

2. It is a matter for great regret that this temple should have, during several years past, been involved almost continuously in the litigation, and thus its affairs should have got into chronic mismanagement.

3. The two plaintiffs instituted the suit with the sanction of the Advocate-General under the provisions of Section 92, G.P.C. The three defendants have been for some years past the Trustees, Dharmakarthas of the temple; the 1st and 2nd defendants from about 1913 and the 3rd defendant from June 1919. The plaintiffs seek in this action to have the defendants removed from their office of the Dharmakarthaship on the ground and for the reasons set out in the plaint, for an account of their management and for the modification of the scheme framed by this Court in respect of the suit temple in C.S. No. 111 of 1918. That suit was similar to the present one and substantially for the same reliefs. The 3rd defendant, however, was originally one of the plaintiffs in that action, but being elected a trustee during the pendency of the suit was transposed as defendant. Though there were various charges of misfeasance and negligence made in that suit against defendants 1 and 2, on the ground of which their removal from office was prayed for, yet, when the suit came on for final hearing the charges and the prayer for removal of defendants 1 and 2 from office were not pressed in view of the defendants-trustees agreeing to a modification of the scheme of management and to the term of office of every trustee being limited instead of being for life as theretofore. On this arrangement the learned Judge who heard the case, Mr. Justice Coutts-Trotter, modified the scheme of management introducing many necessary and salutary changes. Appeals were filed however, from the decree of which the scheme was so modified, not only by certain worshippers at the temple who appeared at the framing of the scheme, but also by V. Parthasarathy Aiyangar, the 1st defendant, who, amongst other things, objected, after having agreed thereto at the original suit, to the limitation of the term of his office, Sir Charles Spencer and Ramesam, JJ., who heard those appeals deleted some of the modifications in the scheme effected by the learned Judge at the original trial. The present suit was instituted in or about 1924 after the decree of the original Court in the said C.S. No. Ill of 1918 and before the judgment on appeals therefrom. It originally came on for final disposal before one of us; but as it was felt that there might be some incongruity in a single Judge sitting on the original side subjecting to further revision a scheme of management relating to the temple which was revised by a Bench of two learned Judges of this Court only recently, the matter was placed before the Chief Justice and under his orders a Bench constituted of us three Judges was arranged to try the case.

4. Two questions of a preliminary character were argued on behalf of the defendants. The first was that embodied in the fifth issue. The contention was raised, though not seriously argued, that the suit itself was not maintainable as it was not constituted into a representative suit by leave of Court being obtained under the provisions of Order 1, Rule 8, C.P.C. and notice being given thereunder to all parties concerned. Not merely were we not referred to any authority in respect of the contention, but there was not even any argument advanced based on the reason of the thing. It was conceded, as it had to be, that any decree passed in a suit under Section 92, C.P.C., was binding not onl