John Wallis, C.J.

1. These are appeals from the decree of the Subordinate Judges Court of Chingleput declaring the appointment of the first defendant as the temporary trustee of Ekambaranatha swami Temple was invalid, and that, if it were valid, the first defendant had rendered himself liable to be removed and should be ramval, and also setting a scheme for the future management of the temple.

2. Now as regards the first point, a question has been argued before us whether a Temple Committee has power to appoint a trustee temporarily. As no bedy desires that the temporary appointment of the present first defendant should be continued it is unnecessary for us to express any final opinion upon that question. Speaking for myself, I am disposed to think that the cases to which we have been referred are eases where trustees have been appointed by a Temple Committee without any reservations and the offices had been held to be free-bold offices. The powers which had been given to the beard of a Revenue by Section 13 of the Regulation VII of 1817 and which were conferred upon the was Temple Committee by Act XX of 1863 are 11 exceedingly wide and enable them to appoint a persons nomina