Venkatasubba Rao, J.

1. This suit has been brought by the Board of Commissioners for the modification of a scheme under the Madras Religious Endowments Act. The plaintiff compromised the suit with certain of the defendants and asked the Court to recognize the compromise and pass a decree accordingly. The learned District Judge refused to comply with the request on the ground that the compromise was not in the interests of the temple in question. The reasons for the step taken by the learned Judge are to be gathered from two orders made by him on the same date.

2. This appeal is filed by defendants 1, 2, 5, 6 and 7. The present attitude of the Board is different from what it was in the Lower Court. It now says that the compromise was entered into under a certain misapprehension and ought not therefore to be recognised. In the plaint, serious charges were made against defendants 1 and 2 who were alleged to have misappropriated sums amounting to about Rs. 60 to 70 thousands. There is one very definite allegation with which we are directly concerned. It is asserted that the 1st defendant sold his own property worth about Rs. 2,500 to the trust for about Rs. 10,000 and received th