1. We are of opinion that the District Judge has misconstrued Section 539 of the Civil Procedure Code in holding that it does not apply to this suit. Under that section one of two conditions must exist in order to bring a suit within its purview. Either there-must be any alleged breach of any express or constructive trust created for public, charitable or religious purposes, or there must be some direction of the Court deemed necessary for the administration of any such trust. If in any suit one of these two conditions exist it must be filed in the
2. Court (mentioned in the section) either by the Advocate General or by two or more persons interested in the trust, with the sanction of the Advocate General previously obtained.
3. As to the relief, so far as we can gather from the judgment of the District Judge, he seems to think that this case does not fall within Section 539 because no relief is claimed of the description of the clauses a. b, c, d and e in that section. But the words of the section clearly show that these reliefs are not exhaustive and that any other relief may be claimed in such a suit.
4. In the plaint in the present suit a distinct, breach of trust is alleged on the part of the trustees. What is complained of is that they have not given any feast during four years and the relief claimed is that a decree may be passed enforcing the trust and compelling the trustees to give these feasts. As for the amount of Rs. 480 (for four years) to be paid to the plaintiff, that is a mere surplusage.
5. For these reasons we must hold that the Subordinate Judge had no jurisdiction to entertain this suit. We set aside the order of remand of the District Judge and restore that of the Subordinate Judge.
6. Costs of this appeal and of the lower appellate Court to be paid by the respondents.