JUDGMENT Pandrang Row, J. 1. This is an appeal from the decree of the District Judge of Madura dated October 18, 1932, affirming on appeal the decree of the Principal Subordinate Judge of Madura, dated February 28, 1930 in O.S. No. 120 of 1928 which was a suit for recovery of Rs. 4,625 from the defendants, three in number. The principal allegations were that defendant No. 1 who was the trustee of the plaint mentioned Devastanam, Sri Kallalagar Devastanam, from 1919 to April 1326, had been grossly negligent as regards certain items set forth in Scheduled 2, to the plaint, and that his negligence had caused loss to the Devastanam which he was bound to make good. The other two defendants were impleaded on the ground that they had executed a security bond binding themselves to make good to the Devastanam any loss that might be caused by defendant No. 1s breach of duty or negligence, etc. The suit was dismissed by the trial Court as against defendants Nos. 2 and 3, and the only item in respect of which negligence was found to be proved by the trial Court was in respect of the special festival celebrated in June 1924 at the temple, known as the Thailaprithishtai and Jyeshtabhishekam. As regards the other items charged, the trial Court found the defendant No. 1 was not guilty of any negligence. As regards the money spent for this special festival by defendant No. 1, the trial Court was of opinion that though the temple was a rich one and was in a position to spend Rs. 4,000 and even more for the Jyeshtabhishekam, defendant No. 1 was not justified in spending more than the Rs. 1,000 that was sanctioned by the temple committee. In other words, his finding was that though the temple could very well afford the amount actually spent on the festival never the less defendant No 1 was only asubordinate of the committee and had exceeded the allotment of Rs. 1,000 fixed by the committee, and he was, therefore, liable to pay back the excess spent by him, namely, Rs. 3,633, and passed a decree accordingly. 1,000 fixed by the committee, and he was, therefore, liable to pay back the excess spent by him, namely, Rs. 3,633, and passed a decree accordingly. On appeal this decree was confirmed by the District Judge who was of opinion that because defendant No. 1 ignored the limit of expenditure imposed by the temple committee, he did so at his peril and that he cannot shelter himself behind an allegation that the allotment was unreasonable, Defendent No.1 is the appellant in this second appeal.