Judgment.- In this appeal the short point for determination is as to whether the view taken by both the lower Courts that the suit is unsustainable for want of sanction under section 92, Civil Procedure Code, is correct. The plaintiff claimed to be a co-trustee with the first defendant in respect of the construction of a matara for the benefit of the public in the following circumstances mentioned in the plaint. The first defendant and one Sivakoti Appalacharyulu purchased in 1936 a carpenter service inam land with a view to convert the same into house sites. The plaintiff alleges that they sough, his financial assistance for working the whole scheme and he gave such assistance and that on 17th March, 1937, under an agreement executed by Appalachaiyulu and the first defendant in favour of the plaintiff they declared their intention of getting a temple or a place of religious worship constructed for the benefit of the public of the colony of" Mandavaripeta and a choultry for the benefit of the general public and that the funds required for the construction of the choultry and the temple were to come out of the commission on the sale proceeds of the sites. The plaintiff alleges further that the buildings were left incomplete and that the first defendant had certain monies of the trust with him, which he was liable to account to the plaintiff on behalf of the trust. The prayers in the plaint are for a declaration that the first defendant was a co-trustee with the plaintiff but not the beneficial owner for the purpose of carrying out the trust of constructing and maintaining the matam, for a mandatory injunction directing the first defendant to complete the construction of the matam and deposit a sum of Rs.800 representing the half share of the "Dharmam" set apart for the matam and the amount kept by the late Appalacharyulu with the first defendant and directing him to contribute the half share of the amount required for the acquisition of another property, and, in general, for accounts of all monies collected by the first defendant. The trial Court held that the allegations in the plaint undoubtedly showed that the plaintiff was seeking the direction of the Court in regard to the administration of the trust and the suit was not one by a trustee who was trying to assert or vindicate his own rights against his other co-trustee but a suit brought for the purpose of securing a better management of the trust and that therefore sanction was absolutely necessary under section 92, Civil Procedure Code. The learned District Judge, in appeal, while confirming the finding of the trial Court, observed that the prayers in the plaint might be stated to come under clauses (d) and (e) of section 92 and therefore the suit was not maintainable in law without complying with the formalities required under the section. The learned Judge further observed that this was not a case of a trustee asking his co-trustee to account for the monies received by him but for a regular administration of the trust and for a declaration that the plaintiff was a co-trustee. From the plaint it will be seen that the suit is one by a person who claims to be a trustee along with the first defendant for the carrying out of the trust and constructing and maintaining a matam and the reliefs are mainly for an account from the co-trustee and also for certain other directions to be complied with in the performance of the trust. The view taken by the Full Bench in Janakibai v. Thiruchitrambala Vinayakar1, that the question whether a suit falls within section 92, Civil Procedure Code, depends, not upon the character in which the plaintiff sues, but upon the nature of the reliefs sought, has been differed from in the later Full Bench decision in Thirumalai Tirupati Devasthanam Committee v. Krishnayya2. The view taken by the Full Bench in Janakibai v. Thiruchitrambala Vinayakar1, that the question whether a suit falls within section 92, Civil Procedure Code, depends, not upon the character in which the plaintiff sues, but upon the nature of the reliefs sought, has been differed from in the later Full Bench decision in Thirumalai Tirupati Devasthanam Committee v. Krishnayya2. In the later Full Bench case, which was a suit by the general trustees of a public temple against the trustee of certain offerings in cash and kind praying for a decree directing accounts and inquiries and for the recovery of such offerings or their value to be ascertained on such accounts being taken, it was held that the trustees of the temple had the right of recovering from the trustees of the fund monies and offerings which the latter had collected on behalf of the temple and this right was entirely independent of section 92, Civil Procedure Code, that the trustees of the fund were in law bound to deliver to the trustees of the temple the monies and offerings in kind, and in such a case, the trustees of the temple did not seek to contest the manner of collection or the duties of the trustees of the fund which were peculiarly theirs, but were merely seeking to get from the latter what they held on behalf of the former. The learned Judges disagreed with the view taken in Janakibai v. Thiruchitrambala Vinayakar1, observing that in deciding whether a suit falls within section 92, the Court must go beyond the reliefs and have regard to the capacity in which the plaintiffs are suing and to the purpose for which the suit is brought. There is no doubt in the present case that the capacity in which the plaintiff seeks for the reliefs is as a trustee seeking to recover monies and asking for an account from his -co-trustees who is in possession of monies belonging to the trust. He is not seeking to sue on behalf of the public or trying to enforce any right in a representative character, but only in his individual capacity as a trustee and such a suit does not require the sanction of the Advocate-General under section 92, notwithstanding that some of the reliefs are those enumerated in section 92 as for instance, the relief relating to accounts. The prayer for declaration that the first defendant is a cotrustee with him pre-supposes his right to be a trustee, and the fact that in the written statement the plaintiff’s claim to be a trustee is denied is no ground for holding that the suit is one which comes within the scope of section 92, Civil Procedure Code I am therefore unable to agree with the view taken by the lower Courts that this suit is not maintainable, for want of sanction under section 92 of the Code. The appeal is allowed and the suit is remanded for disposal according to law Costs of this appeal will abide the result of the suit. Refund court-fee. No leave. K.C. ------ Appeal allowed.