A worshipper or a prospective shebait of a private endowment has the right to sue for the removal of the manager and trustees of the endowment, alleging mismanagement and misappropriation of trust funds, even if the idol is not impleaded as a party to the suit.

( 1 ) THIS is a plaintiffs appeal arising Out of a suit praying for the removal of defendant No. 1 from his office as manager and of defendants Nos. 2 and 3 from their office as trustees of a private endowment, and for his own appointment as manager of the same. The plaintiff further sought an injunction restraining the defendants from managing the endowed property or interfering with its management in future. The plaintiff also claimed rendition of accounts from defendant No. 1 the manager. The dispute in the present case relates to a private endowment which was created by one Chhunnu Lal an ancestor of the plaintiff in the year 1893 by a written deed. By this deed of endowment Chunnu Lal dedicated some properties to the idols of Sitaramji and other deities. For the management of this endowment he framed an elaborate scheme in the deed executed by him. According to this scheme, he was himself to be the manager of this endowment for his life time, and, after his death, his son Jagannath Prasad was to be its manager. The deed further provided for the appointment of a number of trustees whose duty it was to supervise the work of the manager. The office of the manager, according to the deed of endowment was to continue in the descendants of Chunnu Lal, male or female, so long as the family did not become extinct. In case any manager was found undeserving of his office as manager, an assistant manager was to be appointed by written order of the trustees to act with the manager. So far as the appointment of trustees was concerned, the author of the endowment directed that every outgoing trustee was to nominate a new trustee in his place with the consent of the other trustees; and, in case this option was not exercised by him, the remaining trustees could nominate a trustee in the vacancy created. The deed further provided that, in case any trustee was unfit to perform the functions entrusted to him in the deed, and the management was likely to suffer as a result there of, it was open to a court of law to intervene with a view to ensure the proper working of the waqf. It was further provided that in such a case It was also open to any well-wisher of the waqf to come forward, and move a court of law, and the costs incurred in that connection would be defrayed from the dedicated property. It would appear that in the year 1941, when the present suit was brought, the person acting as the manager of the said endowment was Panna Lal defendant No. 1, the grandson of Chunnu Lal, the author of the waqf and defendants Nos. 2 and 3 were acting as trustees of the said waqf. The plaintiff Jangi Lal, son of Munnu Lal, was the great grandson of Chunnu Lal. The plaintiffs father Munnu Lal was the elder brother of Panna lal. Munnu Lal had acted as the Manager of the said waqf prior to Panna Lal up to the year 1918 when he died. The present suit was filed by the plaintiff Jangi Lal who is the great grandson of chunnu Lal against Panna Lal defendant No. 1 who was the Manager of the waqf and the two trustees who are defendants Nos. 2 and 3 on the allegation that the said trust was being mismanaged by Panna Lal its manager. It was alleged in the plaint that Panna Lal was an extravagant and careless person, and he was not taking any interest in the worship on deities. He had ceased to carry out the mandates of the author of the trust, was embezzling trust monies and was misappropriating the income of the trust property for his personal purposes. It was further alleged that defendants Nos. 2 and 3 who were the trustees of the said waqf bad been won over by him and they were colluding with him in his unlawful deeds with the result that the objects of the trust were being completely frustrated. The plaintiff had, therefore, filed the present suit claiming the relief mentioned above.

( 2 ) THE suit was contested by defendant No. 1 only. He denied the charges of misconduct and mismanagements levelled against him. He further pleaded that the present su