1. There were originally four Illams entitled to the management of the pagoda. The third and fourth defendants belonged to one of these Illams. They entered into a partition, and each enjoyed a moiety of the Urayama right belonging to their Illam. In another Illam which enjoyed what has been described as the second Urayama right, the right of a management was relin-quished by the father, first plaintiff, to his son, the second defendant. The first defendant, the head of the Illam which held the first Urayama right, the second defendant, the son of first plaintiff, and the fifth defendant, who had the fourth Urayama right, came to an agreement with the third and fourth defendants, who held conjointly the divided Urayama right, that the fourth defendant should relinquish his moiety to the third defendant, and that a fifth Urayama right should be created in favour of the fourth defendant in consideration of the payment of Rs. 600 by the third and fourth defendants for the benefit of the Devaswam. It appears to us that the power of management conferred by the first plaintiff on his son did not authorize the son to consent to an alteration in the constitution of the trust, and, therefore, the first plaintiff has a locus standi. This being so, the further question arises whether a majority of the Uralars can bind a dissentient minority by an agreement to increase the number of Uralars. No authority has been cited to show they have such power. We, therefore, hold that the act was an act in excess of the authority of the consenting Uralars and cannot be supported.
2. We reverse the decree of the Subordinate Judge and restore that of the District Munsif, but, under the circumstances, we direct that each party do bear his own costs in all Courts.