Saunders, J.This second appeal is by the plaintiff against the dismissal of a suit instituted by him as the representative of three idols and manager of the thakurbari in which they have been installed, for the recovery of some of the property dedicated to them and afterwards alienated by their pujari without necessity. In 1862, one Lachman Prasad dedicated to the idols a four annas share in each of two villages, Rewara Jagdispur and Birni Bishunpur. After a partition of the family property one of his sons Jadubans Lal, had a twelve annas share in the former village and the other son, Fatehbahadur, had a share of the same extent in the latter and each was entrusted with the management of the endowed properties in the village of which he was a part proprietor.

2. In 1879 a man named Ganpat Jha was appointed pujari. According to a the deed of endowment the pujari was to have the management of the properties but he was not permitted to alienate any of them, and he was to render an account of the income and expenditure to the heirs of Lachman Prasad, who were given the power to dismiss him for immorality, and in that event or on his death to appoint another pujari. The income was to be spent "on virtuous acts in consultation with the heirs." When Ganpat died his son Brijnandan Jha succeeded to the office. In 1892, the widow of Jadubans Lal, as guardian of her minor sons gave to the person from whom the defendants derive their title a lease of the idols share and also of her sons share in Rewara Jagdishpur for a period of 12 years and in 1900 one of the sons, then of age, and his mother on behalf of the other son, executed another lease of the same property in favour of the same person for a term of 9 years. In 1919 the plaintiff who had inherited the twelve annas share of Birni Bishunpur brought a suit against the other members of his family whose interests lay in Rewara Jagdishpur and against Brijnandan Jha.

3. Soon after the institution of the suit Brijnandan Jha, who according to the plaintiffs claim in the suit had already been dismissed, executed a lease of the idols four annas share in Rewara Jagdishpur for a term of 31 years without taking any nazrana from the lessee on a rent of Rs. 1,200 a year which was the same rent as in the two previous leases.

This is the lease to which the present suit relates. The 1919 suit was compromised in 1924 by all the heirs of Lachman Prasad, and by the compromise the plaintiff was appointed manager of the endowed properties in place of Brijnandan Jha who was declared to have been dismissed. Brijnandan Jha had already withdrawn from the suit which accordingly was decreed against him ex-parte. Brijnandan Jha had brought a suit in 1917 for partition of Rewara Jagdishpur and obtained a preliminary decree. After the compromise in the other suit the present plaintiff applied to the Court for transfer of his name from the category of defendants in the partition suit to the category of plaintiffs and for the substitution of himself as plaintiff in place of Brijnandan Jha. The application was allowed, but on an appeal by the lessees to the High Court the order of the lower Court was set aside.

4. It was found by the High Court that the plaintiffs appointment as manager of the thakurbari was not valid as the deed provided for management by the pujari, an office which the plaintiff as a kayesth could not hold. In order to meet this difficulty the plaintiff had his plaint in the present suit amended and added as a defendant one Mukh Lal Jha whom he alleged he had appointed to be pujari. He also added another relief to the plaint to the effect that if it should be found that he was not entitled to possession of the leased property, possession should be delivered to such person as the Court might think proper or to a receiver who might be appointed for the purpose.

5. The trial Court found that the alienation was valid and that even if it were not valid it could not be set aside at the instance of the plaintiff who, not having been lawfully appointed as manager could not maintain the suit on behalf of the idols. On an appeal by the plaintiff from this decision the District Judge reversed the finding of the trial Court with regard to the validity of the alienation which the Judge held to have been without necessity, but he agreed with the trial Court that the plaintiff had no right to institute the suit.

Mr. Das appearing for the appellant contended, as was contended in the lower Court of appeal, that even if the appellants appointment as manager of the dedicated properties was invalid inasmuch as it was not in accordance with the terms of the deed of endowment, he could maintain the suit either as de facto manager or as a member of the family of the donor.

6. Dealing with an objection similar to that taken by the defendants in this case a Division Bench of this High Court found in the case of Naurangi Lal v. Ram Charan Das 1930 Pat 455, relating to a math, that the plaintiff was in actual possession of the math and generally recognized as Mahanth and held that as he was not claiming the property as his own property but as the property of the idol installed in the math, he was as competent to maintain the suit as any person who might sue as the next friend of the idol. In the present case although the defendants denied the plaintiffs assertion in his plaint that as manager he had entered into possession of all the properties of the idols in July 1924, and that he was in peaceful possession of the thakurbari and all the properties attached to it, they did not state who was in possession.

7. On the other hand, they admitted in their written statement their liability to pay rent to the plaintiff who they alleged had refused to accept it when it was offered to him. The plaintiffs name is entered in the Land Registration Department as manager of the properties: and the other members of the family, the only persons besides the plaintiff who have any interest in the endowment admitted the plaintiffs possession and his right to institute the suit as manager on behalf of the idols. In these circumstances it seems to me that he is the de facto manager and as such competent to maintain the suit. He was appointed to be manager by the persons to whom the power of appointment was given by the deed of endowment and I do not consider that the defendants can successfully resist the claim made by him on behalf of the idols to recover property improperly alienated only because the appointment was not made in accordance with the provisions of the deed.

8. As to the plaintiffs right to bring the suit as a member of the family of the founder of the endowment it has been held by the Calcutta High Court in the case of Girish Chandra v. Upendranath 1931 Cal 776 , that as in the case of a public and charitable endowment any person who is in any way interested in the trust is entitled to maintain a suit for a declaration that alienations made by the trustee are not binding on the trust Abdur Rahim v. Md. Barkat Ali 1928 P.C. 16, there is the greater reason for holding that a person interested in a private trust as a member of the family for whose spiritual benefit the worship of the idol was established should be entitled to maintain a suit of this nature. In that case also the plaintiff was de facto shebait. The learned District Judge held that the plaintiff was not entitled to prosecute the suit as a member of the founders family because be did not ask to have himself described alternatively in the plaint as having brought the suit in that capacity although the plaintiff in his petition for amendment of the plaint stated:

Even as one of the heirs of the founder the petitioner is entitled to have the relief asked for in the plaint in the presence of all persons interested.

9. The learned Judge considered that much difficulty would arise if the relief were granted to him as a member of the family which he had prayed for as the manager of the properties. The nature of the difficulty has not been stated, but Sir Sultan Ahmed appearing for the respondents contended that the difficulty lies in the fact that the suit is for possession which, he argued, cannot be given to a person who has no right to manage the idols property. This argument takes us back to the first contention on behalf of the plaintiff that he could sue as the de facto manager in which capacity being in possession of the other properties dedicated to the idols he can be given possession of the property found to have been alienated without necessity by the former pujari.

10. I would accordingly allow the appeal with costs and decree the suit with the costs in respect of the declaration asked for as to the invalidity of the lease of the four annas share of Rewara Jagdishpur and the plaintiffs prayer for recovery of possession of that property.

Agarwala, J.

11. I agree.