1. The plaint is no doubt inartistically framed. It does not allege, what appears in evidence, the acts done by the defendants in pursuance of the order which the plaintiffs impeach. The substantial question is whether, on the part of the defendants, there has been an invasion of the rights of the plaintiffs as members of the Committee entitling them to seek relief by suit. If tine act of the defendants, then members of the Committee had stopped with a mere resolution dismissing the trustee and nothing further had been done, we are not prepared to say that the plaintiffs would have had a cause of action, provided that they had not been actually excluded from taking part in the inquiry and the decision. Here however, action was taken upon the resolution, and it was communicated to the authorities with a view to placing the new manager in the room, of the, rightful one, and other acts were done calculated to interfere with the management of the latter.
2. In the other case, we have held that the order of removal was illegal and therefore void as against the trustee. As against the plaintiffs, members of the Committee also, we think that it was illegal, because although the papers were communicated to one of the plaintiffs, it was the duty of the defendants, when their colleagues did not agree to, or acquiesce in, their proposal to convene a meeting in order to have the matter duly settled by the Committee. The fact that the plaintiffs did not convene a meeting did not justify the defendants in treating their proposal as a resolution of the Committee and proceeding to give effect to it.
3. It is said that the only person entitled to complain is the rightful trustee and that the plaintiffs have no remedy. We cannot accept this view. Under the Act XX of 1863 the superintendence of the institution is vested in the Committee.. Each member of the Committee is bound to take part in discharging their duty, part of which consists in seeing that the institution is under the management of a proper trustee. He has a direct interest in seeing that he is dealing with the person who is rightfully trustee of the institution, and, therefore, if any dispute arises he is entitled at least to a declaration, which will settle the point. In this view, we think the suit is maintainable and we, therefore, allow the appeal with costs. There will be a decree declaring that, notwithstanding the order of July 1894, Subbay-yar is the proper trustee and that the 4th and 5th defendants are not properly appointed trustees.