JUDGMENT Sir Arnold White, C.J. 1. Civil Revision Petition No. 751 of 1908: This is a petition under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887, against the decision of the Subordinate Judge of Tuticorin on the preliminary objection that the suit being one "relating to a trust" within the meaning of the Article 18 of the second schedule to the Act, it was not triable on the Small Cause side of the Court. The Subordinate Judge allowed the preliminary objection. 2. The suit is by a limited liability company brought in the name of the "President" of the Company for "subscriptions" alleged to be due to the Company, under its Articles of Association and rules, from Defendants Nos. 2 to 4 as "members" of the company. 3. Defendants Nos. 2 to 4 are described in the plaint as trustees of a "dharmam" or charitable trust, the trust itself being the first Defendant. 4. The claim is made against Defendants Nos. 2 to 4 as trustees, and alternatively in their private capacity. The Plaintiff asks for payment of the amount claimed from the first Defendant, i.e., apparently out of the trust property, and alternatively by Defendants Nos. 2 to 4 personally. 5. The second Defendant pleads that the trust funds are in the possession of Defendants Nos. 8 and 4 and that they are liable. He denies his personal liability. The third Defendant pleads inter alia that he and the Defendants 2 and 4 are not the trustees of the "dharmam", and that the properties of the dharmam are managed by the entire body of the caste of which Defendants Nos. 2 to 4 are members. The fourth Defendant pleads inter alia that Defendants Nos. 2 to 4 are not the sole trustees and that the trust property is managed by the whole caste. 6. It seems to me the suit is one relating to the liability of the Defendants, either as trustees, or in their personal capacity, to pay to the company the "subscriptions" alleged to be due from them as "members", and that is not a suit relating to a trust within the meaning of the words in the second schedule to the Act. In my opinion the fact that, in order to decide the questions raised in the suit, it may be necessary to determine whether the trust property is liable does not make the suit one "relating to a trust." The Defendants are not sued because they are trustees but because, as the Plaintiff alleges, they are liable under the Articles of Association of the company to pay the subscriptions claimed. It may be that, as the result of a decision in this suit, questions may arise for determination as between the Defendants Nos. 2 to 4 and their cestuis que trustent (if any), but this, in my opinion, does not make the suit one "relating to a trust" as between the Plaintiff and Defendants Nos. 2 to 4. 7. The words "suit relating to a trust" are no doubt wider than the words in the corresponding enactment in the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882, which are "suits to enforce a trust," but the introduction of the words "including a suit", etc., in Article 18 of the second schedule to the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, seems to me to indicate that the words" suits relating to a trust "should be construed in a restricted sense. If the words "suits relating to a trust "are susceptible of the general interpretation which the Subordinate Judge has placed upon them, the later words of the paragraph "including, etc.," would seem to be unnecessary. 8. I think the view I have indicated is borne out by the authorities see Sundaralingam Chetti and Anr. v. Mariyappa Chetti and Anr. 9. In Krishnayyar v. Soundararafa Ayyangar I.L.R. (1898) Mad. 245. where it was held the suit was not cognisable by a Small Cause Court, the suit was by a trustee against his predecessor in office for loss to the Cestui que trust, by the Defendants negligenoe, i.e., breach of trust. In M.V. Subramania Ayyar v. Pandi Doraisami Taver and Ors. I.L.R. 26 Mad. 368. where it was held the suit was not cognisable, the Plaintiffs cause of action, if any, was to enforce the performance of the trust in so far as the trust related to him. 10. In M.V. Subramania Ayyar v. Pandi Doraisami Taver and Ors. I.L.R. 26 Mad. 368. where it was held the suit was not cognisable, the Plaintiffs cause of action, if any, was to enforce the performance of the trust in so far as the trust related to him. 10. I think the Small Cause Court had jurisdiction, that the order of the Subordinate Judge on the preliminary objection should be set aside, and that the case should go back to the Subordinate Judge to be dealt with by him as a Small Cause suit. The costs in this Court are to abide the event. Civil Revision Petitions Nos. 752 to 757 of 1908 follow. Benson, J. 11. C.R.P. Nos. 751 to 757 of 1908).-I find lit difficult to hold that these suits are not" suits relating to a trust" within the meaning of Article 18 of the Provincial Small Cause. The first Defendant is the trust itself. Defendants Nos. 2 to 4 are sued as trustees and it is the trust property which the plaint seeks to make primarily liable for the sums claimed, the claim against Defendants Nos. 2 to 4 personally being only an alternative claim. I do not think that the cases cited by the Petitioners pleader support his contention that such suits as those now in question do not "relate to a trust" nor do I think that the words at the end of Article 18 "including a suit", etc., can be read so as to restrict the generality of the preceding words " suits relating to a trust." 12. The present suits on the face of the plaints involve the question of the liability of the trust property and this directly raises the question of the trustees right to deal with the trust property in the way they have done. 13. I therefore think that they relate to a trust and are not triable by a Small Cause Court. 14. I would dismiss the petitions with costs. 15. The Chief Justice.-As my learned brother differs, the point of law which is stated in the judgments will be referred to Mr. Justice Sankaran Nair under Section 98 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 16. These petitions came on for hearing before the Honble Mr. Justice Sankaran Nair who delivered the following Judgment- I agree with the Chief Justice. 15. The Chief Justice.-As my learned brother differs, the point of law which is stated in the judgments will be referred to Mr. Justice Sankaran Nair under Section 98 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 16. These petitions came on for hearing before the Honble Mr. Justice Sankaran Nair who delivered the following Judgment- I agree with the Chief Justice. The orders of the Subordinate Judge will be set aside and he will be directed to restore the suits to his file and dispose of them in accordance with law. It is open to him if he thinks fit to act under Section 23 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act. The parties will bear their own costs in this Court. The costs in the lower Court will be provided for in the final decree.