Judgment :- 1. These appeals arise out of O.S. 66 of 1110 on the file of the court below. A.S. 291 is by the plaintiffs whose suit was dismissed and A.S. 300 is by the 2nd defendant, Travancore-Sirkar, now represented by the Travancore Devasworn Board, and is against certain findings recorded by the court below in its judgment and the order directing the appellant to bear their costs. 2. The suit has relation to the Sastha temple at Erachikulam situated in the Erachikulam Pakuthy. Survey Nos. 1115 and 1116 of that Pakuthy belong to that Devaswom. Three fallen trees from those survey numbers were auctioned by the 2nd defendant and purchased by the 1st defendant whose highest bid was Rs. 25/-. The plaintiffs allege that they are the trustees in management of the temple which belonged to the villagers of that locality. The act of the 2nd defendant in auctioning the above said trees was questioned as ultra vires and a declaration to that effect sought. A claim for recovery of the said amount of Rs. 25/- from the 1st and 2nd defendants was also made. 3. Both the defendants contested the suit. One of the main contentions related to its maintainability under the Travancore Devaswom Proclamation of 1097 which, after providing for the vesting of the properties belonging to and the administration of the affairs of the Devaswoms mentioned in the schedule annexed thereto, with the State enacted by Section 9 that: "No suit shall lie in any Civil Court against Our Government: [1] for anything done in relation to the Devaswoms mentioned in the Schedule and their properties before the commencement of this Proclamation; and [2] for anything done or purporting to be done in pursuance of this Proclamation." There were issues settled also in respect of the actual management of the Devaswoms in 1056 which, according to the plaintiffs, was in the hands of trustees appointed by the villagers; while according to the 2nd defendant it was with the Revenue Department. Pursuant to the said Proclamation, it was contended that the management came into the hands of the Devaswom Department. The court below found the suit not maintainable. Proclamation dated 25th Mithunam 1121 repealed the earlier Proclamation of 1097 and re-enacted its provisions regarding the management of Devaswoms. The temple in question was not in the schedule attached to the Proclamation of 1097. The court below found the suit not maintainable. Proclamation dated 25th Mithunam 1121 repealed the earlier Proclamation of 1097 and re-enacted its provisions regarding the management of Devaswoms. The temple in question was not in the schedule attached to the Proclamation of 1097. In the fresh schedule prepared after the Proclamation of 1121, the temple in question was included as temple No. 64 in the Thovala Taluk. The lower court found that the Proclamation of 1121 was retrospective in operation, that section 9 of that Proclamation applied to this case and that, therefore, though the suit was instituted in 1110 and the Proclamation was issued only in 1121, the suit could not be maintained. 4. Mr. Madhavan Nair, learned advocate for the first appellant contends that the view of the court below that the Proclamation of 1121 is retro-active is erroneous. 5. It appears to us unnecessary in this case to consider that aspect of the question or the merits of the controversy on the question of fact considered by the court below which is the subject-matter in A. S. 300. It appears to us that in view of sections 3 and 4 of the Proclamation of 1121 which provide that the proper custodians of the money sought to be recovered are the 2nd defendant Board who admit that they are holding the fund on behalf of the Devaswom as part of the Devaswom fund within the meaning of section 4 of the Proclamation. As the Devaswom in question is included in the schedule to that Proclamation, the fund belonging to it should be in the possession and management of the 2nd defendant as the proper manager under the Proclamation. Even if the plaintiffs' claim that they are entitled to get a decree for recovery of the amount from the 2nd defendant is well-founded, they are not entitled to retain the sum for any time after recovery because they are not the proper custodians of the money, as the proper custodians, as already stated, are the 2nd defendant. Under the circumstances, it is not possible nor is it proper to grant a decree to the plaintiffs for recovery of Rs. 25/- from the 2nd defendant. When the person asking for a relief is bound to restore the subject matter immediately on getting it to the person from whom it is sought to be recovered, such relief should not be granted. 25/- from the 2nd defendant. When the person asking for a relief is bound to restore the subject matter immediately on getting it to the person from whom it is sought to be recovered, such relief should not be granted. There are several principles supporting this view. One is that in certain cases equity will take it as done, what ought to be done. Another is that multiplicity of proceedings should be avoided. In Loke Yew v. Port Swettenham Rubber Company (1913 A.C. 491 (82 L.J.P.C. 89), Lord Moulton, delivering the judgment of the Privy Council refused relief to the plaintiff observing as follows: "Now, it is clear that a cestui que trust has the right to require a trustee who is a bare trustee for him of land to register that land in his name, seeing that he is the sole beneficial owner and that the trustee has no interest therein. The present action from this point of view is an action by a bare trustee of land to eject the beneficial owner who is and has for years been in possession of the land and has cultivated it." Page 506. Sir Asutosh Mookerjea and Panton, JJ., quoted the second sentence of the above extract and followed the view underlying it in Syam Kishore De v. Umesh Chandra Bhattacharjee (55 I. C. 154). 6. Mr. Madhavan Nair had not much to say against this view that we take. He only stated that in the event of the appellants getting back the management of the Devaswom at some future time, this decision should not bar their right to get the Rs. 25/- in question. Should they get back the management, they would get also all the assets of the Devaswom then existing including this sum if unexhausted. 7. The result is that the decree passed by the court below dismissing the suit is right and should be upheld though for different reasons. 8. We have to make it clear that in the view we take, it is unnecessary for us to express any opinion as to the result of the controversy on which the court below has recorded findings which are challenged in the appeal (A.S. 300 of 1124) presented by the 2nd defendant and those questions are left open. 9. Both the appeals are dismissed. 9. Both the appeals are dismissed. In the peculiar circumstances "of the case we direct that both parties do bear their respective costs here and in the court below. Dismissed.