1. In O.S. No. 8 of 1911 a scheme was drawn up for the administration of the Tiruvadandai temple. It consisted of five clauses, the last of which provided that:
The scheme shall work tentatively for three years and may be mpdified hereafter by the on the motion of the trustees, the sobha or any person interested.
2. Nothing further appears to have been done by anyone thereafter and the tentative scheme remained in force till 1920. In that year an application was presented to the Court for modification of the scheme, coupled with a prayer for the removal of the Defendant No. 3 from the trusteeship of the temple. In the result, the Court framed an entirely new scheme and granted the prayer for the removal of the Defendant No. 3. It is against this last part of the Court's order that she appeals. The original scheme made no provisions for the removal of a trustee and it seems to us clear that the Courts had no power to remove Defendant No. 3 except on a suit brought for the express purpose under Section 92, Civil P.C. The order of the Subordinate Judge was, therefore, made without jurisdiction.
3. It is, however, argued that no appeal lies against it. It has hitherto been the practice to treat orders of this kind as orders passed in execution and appealable as such. The Privy Council has, in a recent decision ruled that fuch orders do not come under Section 47, Civil P.C : Sevuk Jeranchod Bhogilal v. Dakore Temple Committee . We must hold that Defendant No. 3 has no right of appeal. We see no reason why she should not be allowed to convert her appeal into a revision petition and it is converted accordingly. The order removing her was passed without jurisdiction and it is set aside with costs.
4 The additional Court fee paid by petitioner will be refunded.
5. I agree.