Judgement Appeal from a judgment and decree of the Court of the Judicial Commissioner (April 29, 1916) varying the decree of the Additional District Judge of Buldana. The suit was instituted against Raja Baji Rao, the deceased father of the present appellant, with sanction granted under s. 539 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1882, to remove him from the management of the properties of a Hindu shrine, and for the appointment of a new trustee. The facts material to this report appear from the judgment of their Lordships. The learned Judicial Commissioners in the course of their judgment said " The first question is whether the sansthan is a public trust. Of this we have no doubt whatever. It is a view well established that a trust for a Hindu idol and temple is to be regarded in India as prima facie created for public 17 Law. Rep. 48 Ind. App. 12 ( 1920- 1921) Raja Anand Rao V. Ramdas Daduram 118 charitable purposes. This presumption has not been rebutted by any evidence given in this case. On the contrary the learned District Judge has set out a chain of evidence going to show that the temple or shrine now in dispute, though founded by a remote ancestor of the family of which the appellant claims to be the chief representative at the present time, has been treated for centuries as a public institution, and has been maintained and enriched as such by grants from successive local governments, made from public revenues and by votive offerings laid at the feet of the idol by worshippers of the deity. We do not think that the evidence showing the institution to be a public trust is in any degree rebutted by the circumstances that the management of it has remained in the hands or subject to the control of the founder and his family, that no public body has ever been appointed to supervise the trust, that the successive managers of the trust have never rendered accounts to any one, that they have never admitted accountability to any one, and that the surplus income has been appropriated for centuries to the private purposes of the trustee and his family. .... .... We do not lose sight of the class of institution where a founder applies his own property to the creation of a pagoda or any other religious or charitable foundation, and we recognize the fact that the mere giving of permission to the public to resort to such an institution and make use of it to gain religious merit or obtain charity will not make it a public endowment or control the wishes and pleasure of the founder as to its continuance or disposal. But that is not the position here." They said, however, that the same evidence that led to the conclusion that the institution was a public trust established that the right of management was vested in the successive rajas by usage, and that the lower Court had no power in the suit to prevent the devolution of the trust in Baji Raos successor. With regard to the contention that the suit abated upon Baji Raos death they said " We think that the lower Court had no justification for treating a prayer to remove Raja Baji Rao from office as being equally a prayer for the removal of his successor to that office. But the further prayer that the Court should frame a scheme so as to remedy the existing abuses, invoking the exercise of its control by the Court over a public trust, was one which survived the death of the trustee for the time being, and was rightly granted against his legal representative. 1920. Nov. 9. De Gruyther K.C. and Dube for the appellant. The respondents did not appear. Nov. 12. The judgment of their Lordships was delivered by LORD DUNEDIN. In this case there was a sansthan known as the Sansthan of Sri Balaji at Peth Deolgaon in a taluk of the Buldana District. The rajas of the family, who are at present represented by the appellant Raja Anand Rao, were the hereditary keepers of this shrine. Certain mismanagement had taken place in the lifetime of the father of the present raja, and a suit was then instituted by certain of the worshippers at the temple, their application being for the appointment of new trustees, and the removal of the raja as trustee. In order to prosecute such a suit, a sanction is necessary, and the sanction was given by the Deputy Commissioner, in his capacity of Advocate-General, on January 18, 1904. In order to prosecute such a suit, a sanction is necessary, and the sanction was given by the Deputy Commissioner, in his capacity of Advocate-General, on January 18, 1904. That sanction was in these terms "As the applicants have filed an affidavit to show that they pay kangi, and therefore they have an interest in the temple ; as for the purposes of this application, applicants do not insist on the removal of the trustee. I grant them permission to institute a suit under s. 539." A suit was then instituted in the Court of the District Judge by two of the applicants. In that suit it was set forth that the sansthan was a public, charitable or religious trust, and that there had been mismanagement in the defendants family, and the prayer prayed for a removal, and also that the Court might settle a proper scheme of management. During the progress of the proceedings the old raja had died, and therefore there was no more question of removing him. The Court, after inquiry before the District Judge, held that as a matter of fact the sansthan was a public, charitable or religious trust, and rejected the contention that it was private 17 Law. Rep. 48 Ind. App. 12 ( 1920- 1921) Raja Anand Rao V. Ramdas Daduram 119 property of the rajas family. It also removed the raja from the trusteeship, and said it would proceed to settle a scheme. That judgment was taken by appeal to the Court of the Judicial Commissioner, and they came to the conclusion that the hereditary trusteeship was in the rajas family, and that therefore, as the present raja had not himself been guilty of mismanagement, his right to manage the affairs of the shrine on his attainment of the age of 21 years was conditionally safeguarded, and as to the other points they upheld the judgment. Appeal has now been taken to this Board. Appeal has now been taken to this Board. The first point that is pleaded is that the permission to institute a suit under s. 539 does not square with the application, which was an application conceived merely for the appointment of new trustees, but it really had to be conceded, and their Lordships think it quite clear that, although the application as framed may have been for the appointment of new trustees, yet when they came before the Deputy-Commissioner and explained the matter it was quite within his power to grant the sanction as he has granted it. The next point that is put is that when the sanction says "I grant them permission to institute a suit under s. 539," that does not mean any suit which may be raised under s. 539, but is confined merely to one of the species of suits that could be so raised—namely, the appointment of new trustees. Their Lordships do not think that any such narrow reading can be put upon the sanction as given. There was also a point that the person who originally raised the suit and got the sanction having died the suit could not go on, but there does not seem any force in that point either, it being a suit which is not prosecuted by individuals for their own interests, but as representatives of the general public. Their Lordships are also of opinion that for the purpose of determining on a scheme the suit was properly revived against the present raja. Then when their Lordships come to the merits of the question the appellant is unfortunately faced with the fact that there are concurrent findings on what in the circumstances of this case is a question of fact and nothing more— namely, whether there was a public trust or whether it was a private matter of the rajas family. For these reasons their Lordships will humbly advise His Majesty that this appeal should be dismissed.