The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of raising jurisdictional objections in the first instance and the consequences of bringing a suit in a court lacking jurisdiction.

Sadasiva Aiyar J.

1. Second Appeal No. 502 of 1920 and the connected Civil Revision Petition No. 308 of 1920 have arisen out of a suit instituted by three trustees of a temple against their so trustee in a Munsifs Court.

2. The suit, as I understand the plaint, is one for directing the defendant to submit his accounts and to pay up whatever may be found as the balance in his hands on the scrutiny of the accounts. The Court-fee paid on the valuation of the reliefs sought for were paid on two sums as follows:---"(a) amount which plaintiffs estimate as likely to be duo from defendant on account of receipts and expenditure in respect of the temple.... Rs. 950.0 0," "(b) for rendering accounts Rs. 50-0 0." Order VII, Rule 2, of the Civil Procedure Code, states that where the plaintiff sees for an amount which will be found due to him on taking unsettled accounts between him and the defendant, the plaintiff shall state approximately the amount sued for and 1 take it that Rs. 950 is mentioned accordingly in the plaint as such approximate amount.

3. As I said, this suit was brought in the Munsifs Court. Section 92 of the Civil Procedure Code, corresponding to old Section 539, contains a new clause, (Clause 2) which is as follows:---"Save as provided by the Religions Endowments Act, 1863, no suit claiming any of the reliefs specified in sub-Section (1) shall be instituted in respect of any sub-trust as is therein referred to" (i.e., a public charitable or religious trust) "except in conformity with the provisions of that sub Section" (i e., expert in a District Court: or in specially empowered Court after obtaining the sanction of the Advocate-General). Paragraph 7 of the plaint, no doubt, recites that the defendant received certain moneys (1,300 and odd rupees) and certain quantities of paddies (195 and odd kalams) belonging to the temple. Bat that recital was clearly inserted in order to show that the defendant it liable to submit bin accounts in respect of those amounts and paddies and the other moneys and paddies which roust have been received by him (see 9th and 10th paragraphs of the plaint mentioning approximate annual incomes of the temple) and to have the accounts duly sorutinized and to pay the balance after deducting authorized and valid expenses proved and established by such scrutiny. In paragraph 19 (b) of the plaint, the plaintiffs also seek for recovery of damages from the defendants for acts of malfeasance and malfeasance (the Munsif has, in the beginning of his judgment, set out the nature of the suit correctly), and I am, therefore, dear that the recitals in paragraph 7 of the plaint as regards certain sums and paddies cannot be treated as capable of converting the suit into, or permitting us to construe the suit as, a simple money suit for the recovery of those particular sums and of the value of those particular paddies mentioned in paragraph 7 alone. The decree passed was also not a money and a paddy decree for the amounts and quantities mentioned in paragraph 7 but for -what was agreed upon as due on the scrutiny and settlement of accounts.

4. Now sub Clause 1 of Section 92, Civil Procedure Code has added to the Sub-clauses of the old Section 539 a new Clause (d) whose words are "directing accounts and inquiries." The present suit is a suit praying for a direction to the defendant to render accounts and for inquiries into the amount, due by him as such an accountable person and, therefore, clearly falls under Clause (1). Hence, it follows that as under Dew Clause (2) of Section 92, a suit claiming any of the reliefs specified in Sub-section (1) cannot be instituted except in conformity with the provisions of Sub-section (1) i,e., except in the District Court or in a Subordinate Judges Court, (all Subordinate Judges having been empowered by the Local Government in the Madras Presidency to entertain such suits), this suit brought in the District Munsifs Court was brought in a Court which had no jurisdiction to