JUDGMENT

1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought u/s 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The facts are these. One Ganga Din executed a document on the 2nd of June 1909 purporting to be a deed of gift of certain property belonging to himself in favour of the idol Sri Raugji Maharaj. By that document he clearly made an endowment of his property for the maintenance of the temple of Thakurji and also for the establishment of a Sanskrit patshala. He also provided in the document for other matters which the trustees nominated by him would have to carry out in connection with the endowment and declared what expenditure should be incurred in relation thereto. There can be no doubt that under this document an express trust was created for religious and charitable purposes. In this deed of trust he nominated himself as the first manager of the trust and named three persons, namely, Siddhan Lai, Raghubar Dayal and Jhamman Lai as his successor in the office of manager after his death. On the 2nd of February 1911 he executed another document under which he nominated Siddhan Lai, Jugal Kishore and Maiku Lai to be managers in the place of the three persons named above for the management of the endowment after his death. He also provided in that document that instead of a patshala being established the money pro. vided for the patshala should be spent in sadabart, that is, charity. The present suit was brought with the permission of the Legal Remembrancer by two members of the Hindu community for the removal of the defendants from the management of the property, on the ground that they had obtained the document of 1911 by undue influence from Ganga Din and that they w6re mismanaging the trust property arid had committed a breach of trust by omitting to perform the duties imposed upon the trustees by the maker of the trust. We may mention that Ganga Din died in 1912. The Court below has decreed the claim and made an order removing the defendants from the management of the "trust. It refused to appoint Raghubar Dayal and Jhamman Lal as trustee but made a reference to the Collector for the nomination of trustees and reserved to itself the power of appointing new trustees for the management of the trust. This appeal has been prefoerad by the defendants, and the first contention on their behalf is that this ease could not be instituted u/s 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure. They urge that if the plaintiff's contention is correct that the appointment of the defendants was not legally valid, they are trespassers and could not be sued u/s 92 as trustees. In our opinion this contention is untenable. No doubt Ganga Din, the maker of the trust, was entitled at the time of creating the trust to nominate the persons who were to be managers of the trust after the date of the creation of the trust and to provide for the appointment of further trustees. As has been already stated he declared that he himself would be the first manager (sarbarakar) and that after his death Jhamman Lal, Raghubar Dayal and Siddhan Lai should be the managers. It was not open to him after' the trust had been created to nominate new managers who were to take his place after his death. Subsequently to the creation of the trust his position was merely that of manager and he was not competent to revoke the trust or alter it, or appoint new managers. Therefore, with the exception of Siddhan Lal, who is one of the trustees mentioned in the original deed of trust, the other two defendants are not men who have been validly appointed trustees or could be so appointed. They by their own admission have taken charge of the trust property not as trespassers but as managers of the trust, and, therefore, they must be deemed to be trustees de son tort. In our opinion Section 92 applies to the case of persons who are trustees de son tort. This was held by the Bombay High Court in Jugalkishore v. Lakshmandas 23 B. 659 : 1 Bom. L.R. 118 : 12 Ind. Dec. (N.S.) 440 and by the Calcutta High court in B