Odgers, J.

1. In this case 4 plaintiffs Muhammadans brought a suit under Section 92 of the Civil Procedure Code for the removal of the defendant from the management of mosque Pallivasal in Ellaiammankoil Street, Tanjore, and for consequential reliefs including a scheme for the management of the said mosque. The 1st plaintiff is stated in the plaint to raside at Chunnambukara Street, the 2nd plaintiff at Kollupettai Street, 3rd at Attumanthai Street and the fourth out of Port, Tanjore.

2. The appeal has been argued before us on the point of want of interest of the plain- tiffs under Section 92 of the Civil Procedure Code and also with a view to establishing certain charges set out in plaint paragraph 8(f)(g)(i) and (1) in order to prove certain mismanagement in respect of the temple accounts and property. The learned Judge has dismissed the suit on all points and I shall proceed to deal with the first point that of interest as, in my opinion, the appeal can be disposed of on that ground.

3. The defendant in his written statement alleges that the plaintiffs are not residents of the locality, nor do they live close to the plaint mosque. They have never worshipped in the mosque nor have they any right to do so. By a stone inscription, Ex. B, appearing on the mosque it would seem that Bappu Vaidyar erected the mosque about the, year 1847 or 1848. Ex. A is a settlement deed of 1879 by one Amir Khan Sahib, grandson of the founder, in which he settles Rs. 4,000 worth of properties for the benefit of the charity established by his ancestors in the mosque in Ellaiammankoil Street, Tanjore, and appoints his foster son, who is the defendant, to enjoy the trust property and apply the income to it. On the evidence the learned Judge has found that the 1st plaintiff, who is the Duffadar of the District Court of Tanjore lives far away from the plaint mosque, there being three other mosques nearer to his house and that his opportunities for attending the plaint mosque are limited to the occasions when he happens to visit his second wife when she is living in her mothers house. The 2nd plaintiff says that he attended the mosque when he went to his brothers house for meals. As there is ill-feeling between the two it is improbable that he would go to his brothers house for this purpose. He admits that he has not been to the mosque in the month of Ramzan for the past 7 or 8 years or on the 12th day of the Barawafat month, all of which are festive occasions among Muhammadans. The 3rd plaintiff is a native of some village in Pudukottah and admittedly he went for prayer to one or other of the two mosques which are near his shop and would appear to have no occasion to go to this mosque in the Ellaiammankoil Street. 4th plaintiff lives in the same street as the 3rd. He admits that he had been employed in different places in different capacities for the last 10 or 15 years and consequently he would have had no opportunity of going to this mosque for prayers. There are, further, other mosques near his house, three within half a furlong and one within a furlong. He says he used to go to Ellaiammankoil Street, to collect moneys for his employer. He, however, admits that he has not for the last 2-1/2 years gone to that Street for this purpose. It is, therefore, found by the learned Judge and in fact admitted by the learned vakil for the appellants that none of these plaintiffs can be said to be habitual worshippers of the plaint mosque. Mr. P.R. Ganapathi Aiyar for the appellants contends first that every Muhammadan is entitled as such to attend any mosque for worship, and this may be at once admitted to be correct. He relies not only on this but also on the fact that the plaintiffs are residents of the locality and his contention is that these two points, i.e., right to worship and residence in the locality, taken together, would afford the interest required under Section 92, The test to be applied has been authoritatively laid down as far as we are c