Lawrence Jenkins, K C I E C J - (1.)This is a suit brought under Section 539 of the Civil P. C., and though the remarks of the learned Judge suggest that he viewed the suit as one which did not properly fall within that section, he passed a decree for a scheme as provided by it; and from this decree no appeal has been preferred by the respondent before us.
(2.)The appellant objects that in settling the scheme regard has not been had to his position in connection with the temple.
(3.)It appears from the judgment of the learned District Judge that before him the plaintiffs asked for a declaration of their hereditary right to officiate as pujaris and managers of the temple as against the defendants assertions that they are merely employees of the Punch. They go on to cite the opinion of the Advocate General in these terms :- If the Court decides to frame a scheme under Clause (e) of Section 539, it should decide this question (Schedule of plaintiff's right). Not only is there nothing in the terms of Section 539 to preclude such an enquiry, but such an enquiry is often necessary in suits under that section in order to provide for the proper administration of the trust.