JUDGMENT

1. This appeal arises out of a suit purporting to have been brought by the plaintiffs u/s 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The facts are that in the year 1886 Beni Ram and Tulsi Ram made a gift of certain property in Bareilly for charitable and religious purposes. The manager (sarbarakar) was directed to lay out a grove, construct a temple and a well on the land with the income of the gifted property, or with his own funds, for public benefit and worship. It seems that the sarbarakar did not carry out his trust, on the contrary the temple was not built the grove was not planted and the land (the subject-matter of the gift) was mortgaged and alienated. The result was that one Chote Lal and others obtained the sanction of the Legal Remembrancer and brought a suit u/s 539 of the CPC of 1832, asking that the Manager, Bate Krishen, should be dismissed and praying for the appointment of a trustee in his place. A number of persons were made defendants to this suit as persons who had taken mortgages or become transferees of parts of the trust property. Amongst other defendants was Raja Lilta Prasad. This suit ended in a compromise decree which will be found at page 24 of the resp