JUDGMENT : STANLEY, J. 1. The suit out of which the intended appeal to His Majesty in Council arises was brought by the plaintiff Jamal-ud-din to have it declared that certain property situate in Kasba Sirsi was endowed for the purposes of a mosque and Imambara and for other charitable purposes. No other claim than this appears in the relief claimed in the plaint. A defence was set up to the suit to the effect that the suit came within the purview of section 539 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and that the consent in writing of the Advocate General (in these Provinces, the Legal Remembrancer) had not been obtained to the institution of the suit, and, consequently the suit could not be maintained. The Lower Court was of opinion that this was a good plea, and that the suit was not maintainable. It, however, on the evidence before it dealt with other issues in the suit and ultimately dismissed it upon the preliminary ground raised in the defence, and apparently also upon the merits. On appeal to this Court we held that the suit did not come within the purview of section 539, inasmuch as that section pre-supposes the existence of an express or constructive trust, and that no such trust was alleged in the present case. Accordingly we remanded the case under the provisions of section 562 for trial upon the merits An application has been made on behalf of the defendants for leave to appeal on the ground that the suit comes within section 539, and that the requisite consent not having been obtained, the suit ought to have been dismissed. 2. The question for our determination is whether in determining the preliminary objection raised in the Court below and in this Court as to whether the suit was maintainable or not, the Court decided a cardinal issue in the case, that is, an issue going to the foundation of the suit. We regard the matter decided by us rather as one of procedure than as a matter determining a cardinal issue in the suit. The cardinal issue—and in fact the only issue —raised in the suit was whether or not certain property was endowed property. 3. All that we decided was that the tribunal before which the suit was pending was competent to try the case. The cardinal issue—and in fact the only issue —raised in the suit was whether or not certain property was endowed property. 3. All that we decided was that the tribunal before which the suit was pending was competent to try the case. It will be open to the defendants, on the trial of the case to set up any defence which may be open to them, and it will also be open to them in the event of an appeal to his Majesty in Council hereafter to rely Upon the question which is now sought to be raised in this appeal. Under these circumstances we do not think that the case is one in which leave should be granted at the present time to appeal to His Majesty in Council. We therefore reject the application with costs.