Narayan Bhikaji Khanolkar v. Vasudeo Vinayak Prabhu .

Shah, A.C.J:— The question in second appeal, is whether the ??? suit is barred by the ??? of Section 92, Sub-Section (2) of the CPC, that is, whether the as framed is within the scope of ??? 2. For this purpose it is necessary refer to the allegations in the??? briefly and to the prayer. The ??? is rather a long document, but subject of it is that according to the ??? they and defendants 11 and ??? the Hakdars or some of ??? in the income of the in question, and that defendant Nos. 1, 10 have been managing ??? and appropriating ??? of the temple. After ??? to their Hak to appropriate ??? of the temple, they state ??? of action in this manner in ??? 8:—

??? of the Dewasthan and for ??? the sad Institution, the plaintiffs ??? right this suit as those persons are ??? the income who are ???, the income of the Dewahai ??? to spend it and ??? it towards ??? of the Dewasthan and ??? 11 and 12 are the ??? of the Dewasthan process. Therefore, it is not necessary to ??? Hakdars parties to the suit. Yet if Cour ??? that the other Hitdarsaiisny part as, then it should be ??? plaintiff have brought this suit on behalf ??? in respect there of ??? should be made in accordance with 1, rule 8 of the CPC plaintiffs allowed to conduct the suit.

2. ??? reliefs claimed by the plaintiffs ???

It should be decreed that the plaintiffs defendants 11 and 12 should get from dants 1-10 or from such of them who will admit that they received the income of that the a properties that the am ant of income should be settled by taking account.

B. The plaintiffs are out of the Vahivatdars, of the property of the Dewasthan Hak of the village of Khanoli. Therefore it should be declared that defendants 1-10, who assert that any one can, without the common intent of all the persons forming the class of 5 kdars, do the works in connection with the festivities of the Dewastl an and tak the inc me properties, are not so entitled and an injurotion should be issued against defendants 1-10 or such of them as claim illegally the right to receive the income that they should not spend and henceforth take the income.

C. If there be against the plaintiffs and defendants 11 and 12 any objection to the receiving of the amount of the income received by any of the defendants out of defendants 1-10, they should be directed to keep it credited in the name of the Dewasthan.

3. The learned trial Judge held that the suit was barred under Section 92 of the CPC.

4. It may be mentioned that the suit was filed in the Court of the Second Class Subordinate Judge of Vengurla as an ordinary suit, and Dot in the District Court as a property constituted suit under S. 93.

5. In appeal the learned First Class Subordinate Judge who heard the appeal came to a different conclusion and held that the suit was outside the scope of S. 92, and accordingly remanded the suit for disposal on the merits.

6. Defendants Nos. 1, 4, 6, 7, 8 and 10 have appealed to this Court, and it is urged on their behalf that the view taken by the trial Court is right. On the other hand it is urged that the case really falls in the class of cases of which the decision in Nilkanth Devrao v. Ramakrishna Vtthal(1) may be mentioned as a type. No doubt it may be a matter of some difficulty to decide as to whether a particular case falls within the scope of S. 92 or not. In the present case having regard to the allegations of the plaintiffs, and the nature of the reliefs, it seems to me that the case really falls within the scope of S. 92. It clearly asks that accounts should be taken with reference to trust property received by defendants Nos. 1-10. Further in effect it also asks for directions as to what should be done with these trust funds. The prayer of the plaintiffs is that the funds should go to the plaintiffs and defendants Nos. 11 and 12, and it is funner prayed that if the funds cannot be allowed to go to them, at least a direction may be given that they should be allowed to retain the funds for the benefit of the temple. It is not disputed in this case that there is a trust which is created for the public purposes of a religious nature. Though the position of defendants Nos. 1-10 is not admitted to be that of trustees, or rather they are described as being in the position of persons wrongfully handling the income of the temple, there is the broad fact that at the date of the suit they were in actual management of the temple. Really it is a dispute between the parties as to who are or should be the trustees of the public trust. It is also clear that accounts of the trust property will have to be taken and inquiries made, and directions may have to be given. On the whole it seems to me that the case calls within the scope of S. 92, and the order made by the trial Court appears to be right. It would allow the appeal, set aside the order of the lower appellate Court, and restore the order of the trial Court with, costs here and in the lower appellate Court on the respondents.

Fawcett, J.:— I agree. If the plaintiffs had confined the suit simply to a declaration that they were the managing trustees of this temple, and an injunction restraining the defendants Nos. 1-10 from acting as such trustees, then no doubt the case would be outside Section 92 of the Cr PC, according to various rulings. But the plaint clearly, in my opinion, comes within Section 92 of the CPC.

7. Appeal allowed.