1. This is a suit for the removal of the 1st defendant from the trusteeship of a certain charity and for settling a scheme - of management. The District Judge directed his removal and framed a scheme. In the appeal to this Court a large number of questions were argued. We agree in the main with the conclusions on facts come to by the learned District Judge. We hold that there was a dedication of the choultry to charity under Ex. E. We see no vagueness in the trust-deed and we further agree with the District Judge that the whole of the choultry, not simply a portion of it, was dedicated to the charity.

2. Mr. Narayanamurthi argued two questions of law, on which it is necessary to say a few words. We do not agree with him that the plaintiffs are not entitled to institute the suit under Section 92 of the Civil Procedure Code, They are residents of the locality in which the choultry is situated and are members of the community for whose benefit the charity was founded. In our opinion, these facts give them sufficient interest to institute the suit. The second question relates to the liability of the 1st defendant for the application of the funds of the charity by his grandfather