Lakshmana Rao, J.
1. The appellant claims to be the newly appointed trustee of the Gurunathaswami temple and the suit was instituted by him for recovery of the movable properties of the temple including cash after taking an account of the trust money received by the respondent the previous trustee who is stated to have been lawfully removed by the members of the community. The respondent pleaded that the suit was bad for want of sanction under Section 92 of the Civil Procedure Code and the plea was upheld by the Courts below.
2. The question for determination is whether sanction under Section 92 of the Civil Procedure Code is necessary and as pointed out in a similar case in Venku Chettiar v. Doraisami Chettiar (1921) 14 L.W. 38 which was followed by the Full Bench in Appanna Poricha v. Narasinga Poricha : AIR1922Mad17 , Section 92 of the Civil Procedure Code governs only suits for the vindication of the rights of the public in public, charitable or religious trusts and not to suits by a trustee for vindicating his right of management and getting possession of the trust properties. A suit by a trustee against another whom he alleges to have been lawfully removed is outside the scope of the section even though it asks for an account of the trust money received and to the same effect is the decision in Lakshminarayana v. Punnayya : AIR1927Mad820 . Sanction was necessary in the case in Jambulinga Pathan v. Akilanda Asari : AIR1927Mad886 , as the suit was instituted on behalf of the public, and the dismissal of the suit in this case for want of sanction under Section 92 of the Civil Procedure Code is unsustainable. The decree of the Courts below are therefore set aside and the suit is remanded to the trial Court for disposal according to law. Court-fee paid on the memorandum of appeal in the lower appellate Court and here, will be refunded and costs up to date will abide and follow the result.
3. Leave is refused.