A suit under Section 92 of the Civil Procedure Code can be maintained only in respect of a public trust of a permanent character and the judgment in such a suit would be a judgment in rem and not a judgment in personam.

( 1 ) THIS first appeal filed by two of the defendants arises out of a suit under Section 92 C. P. C.

( 2 ) RESPONDENTS Nos. 1 to 4 brought a suit under Section 92, C. P. C. , with the permission of the advocate General for removal of defendants Nos. 1 to 4 as trustees and appointment of new trustees in their place and also for rendition of accounts of the trust property. It was also prayed that a new scheme be settled for the future management of the trust. Defendants Nos. 5 to 13 were impleaded as creditors of defendants Nos. 1 to 4 and a further relief was claimed that these defendants should have nothing to do with the trust property.

( 3 ) THE dispute related to the charitable trust at Sri Thakur Sri Satya Narain Ji Maharaj of village kaimar, district Aligarh, and it was alleged that a grove in that village and zamindari property in villages Pakwara ana Mangwara constituted public trust property of religious and charitable character and that defendants Nos. 1 to 4, who were the present trustees and belonged to the family of the creator of the trust, having become heavily indebted, had begun to mismanage the property and misappropriate its income. It was further alleged that in an application filed under the provisions of the Encumbered Estates Act defendants Nos. 1 to 4 have shown trust property as their personal property and it has also been ordered that the grove which is a trust property should be taken in liquidation of their debts.

( 4 ) DEFENDANTS Nos. 1 to 4 filed a written statement (Stating that they had no objection to their removal from the office of trustees, but they were not liable to render accounts. Two of the creditors, janki Prasad and Thakur Das, who are the appellants, were the main contesting defendants. Their main defence was that the temple is not a public trust of any religious or charitable nature but was a private temple and the property given in the plaint was never dedicated for any religious or charitable purpose. The property in dispute was said to belong to defendants Nos. 1 to 4 and it was further alleged that they had been unnecessarily impleaded in a suit under Section 92. It was also their case that it having been held on an objection filed by some persons on behalf of the deity that the property belonged to defendants Nos. 1 to 4 the same matter could not be reagitated in a suit under Section 92.

( 5 ) THE learned District Judge framed as many as 12 issues. On the material issues he came to the conclusion that the temple of Sri Satya Narain Ji Maharaj in village Kaimar constituted a public trust of religious and charitable character, that the property given in the plaint was a trust property and that the creditor defendants had not been wrongly impleaded though no specific relief could be granted against them. He further found that the decision of the objection under section 11 of the Encumbered Estates Act did not bar the present suit. He having found that the present trustees were mismanaging the properties removed them from the office and formulated a scheme for future management of the trust property. It is against this order that the present appeal has been filed.

( 6 ) SRI S. B. L. Gaur, learned counsel for the appellants, has conceded (it was also conceded in the court below) that the village properties of villages Pakawara and Mangwara are trust property and the appellants do not claim any interest in those properties. He limited his arguments to the grove of village Kaimar in which the temple itself is situated. His contentions are three-fold. The first contention is that there is no cogent evidence on record to show that the grove is a dedicated property; on the contrary it is the personal property of defendants Nos. 1 to 4. His second contention is that the order passed on an objection under Section 11 of the Encumbered Estates act operates as res judicata and the question of ownership cannot be reagitated. His last contention is that the creditor defendants No