The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of a substantial interest to maintain a suit under Section 92 of the Civil Procedure Code and the eligibility of a party to hold the trusteeship of a charity.

1. The second. defendant is the appellant before ns. the suit was brought with the Advocate-Generals sanction under Section 92 of the Civil Procedure Code for the framing of a scheme for the conduct of certain charities, for the appointment of a new trustee or new trustees (the office of trustee have become vacant according to the allegations in the plaint) and for other appropriate reliefs.

2. A preliminary objection was taken for the respondents that no appeal lay; because to determination of any question between the parties has been arrived at by the lower, Court, and their learned Vakil relied upon the decision in Aiyappa Mudaliar v. Gopalaswami Mudaliar 16 Ind. Cas. 45 : 12 M.L.T. 309 : (1912) M.W.N. 1122. But in that ease no decree was at all drawn up embodying any determination of the Court, whereas in the present case a formal decree has been drawn up determining that there is a vacancy in the office of trustee and that the plaintiffs are entitled to a declaration that the trusteeship is not vested in the second defendant and that there is a vacancy which enabled the Court to frame a scheme. We, therefore, think that there is nothing in the preliminary objection put forward on behalf of the respondents.

3. Coming to the appeal, two technical objections to the maintainability of the suit were argued. One was, that the Advocate Generals sanction did not cover the resection of the suit as against the second defendant, because be was added as a party some time after the suit was filed. - Reliance is placed on Abdul Rahman v. Castum Ebrahim 11 Ind. Cas. 726 : 36 B. 168 : 13 Bom. L.R. 583 and on an English decision on which Abdul Rahman v. Cassum Ebrahim 11 Ind. Cas. 726 : 36 B. 168 : 13 Bom. L.R. 583 was supported by the learned Judges who decided it. We think that the test to be applied to the solution of the question whether the addition of a party requires a fresh sanction from, the Advocate General before the suit against him could be proceeded with, is whether the scope of the suit has been really enlarged by the addition of the new party. Following the decision in Vaithilngam v. Ramalingam Pillai 38 Ind. Cas. 133 : 6 L.W. 9 : (1917) M.W.N. 550 and Mulukutla Ramamurthi v. Chillara Bhaskarayya 50 Ind. Cas. 58 we hold, having regard to the pleading and the character of this suit, that the addition of the second defendant has not enlarged the scope of the suit. We, therefore, overrule this contention.

4. The next contention is bated upon the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in the case resorted in Ramachgndra Iyer v. Parameswaran Munhu 50 Ind. Cas. 693 : 36 M.L.J. 396 : 25 M.L.T. 301 : 9 L.W. 492 : 42 M. 360 : (1919) M.W.N. 370. That any objection could be successfully baaed on the strength of Ramachandra Iyer v. Parameswaran. Munhu 50 Ind. Cas. 693 : 36 M.L.J.396 : 25 M.L.T. 301 : 9 L.W. 492 : 42 M. 360 : (1919) M.W.N. 370 seems not to have been present to the mind of any of the parties (either the plaintiffs or the defendants) till after the written statement was filed and till about the time of the framing of the issues which was done on the 20th February 1918. The plaintiffs did not, therefore, mention in the plaint that they had such an interest in the charitable trust as, according to the Fall Bench decision, would entitle them to bring a suit of this character with the consent of the Advocate-General. The defendants also did not contend in (heir written statement that the plaintiffs did not possess such an interest. However, as issues have to be framed not only on the pleadings but on the contentions put forward by the parties and their Pleaders at the time of issues, the Court ought to have considered the allegations then made by the Pleaders of the defendants and settled the issues with reference to those allegations also. It is desirable that such allegations relating to the existence or non-existence of the interest required by law in the plaintiffs to enable them to maintain this suit should be in