AJODHIA PRASAD Vs. SANGAM LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Sangam Lal and Ganga Narain as relators filed suit No. 5 of 1954 in the District court of Kanpur for an order removing Ajodhia prasad, appellant in this appeal from the office of Sarvarakar and the managership of the trust described in the plaint and from order removing defendants Nos. 2, 3 and 4 from the "office of trusteeship", for appointment of new trustees, Sarvarakar and Manager and for an order against the appellant directing him to render an account of the income and expenses of the trust property during his period of office and for framing a scheme for the management of the trust. The Trial court by order, dated 12/09/1955, passed the following order:

(2.) Against the order by the District court, an appeal was preferred to the High court of Allahabad. The High court in appeal set aside the order appointing the appellant as manager of the trust and further directed that an account be taken from the appellant for the period of his entire management. The court set aside the order of the District court, dated 14/10/1955, appointing the appellant as the Manager of the trust and directed the District court to take steps to appoint another Manager, out of the remaining trustees. For giving effect to the last direction, the High court ordered that the case of Durga Prasad may also be considered and his appointment as secretary be set aside. Against the order passed by the High court, with certificate granted under Article 133 (1) (a) of the Constitution this appeal has been preferred.

(3.) It is contended in the first instance that the High court had no jurisdiction to set aside order of the District court passed by consent appointing the appellant as the Manager. We are unable to hold that the order appointing the appellant the Manager was an order made by consent. The order, dated 14/10/1955, consisted of two parts, the first part relating to the appointment of trustees was an order by consent, and the second part was the adjudication of the court. That second part order was open to examination by the court for its propriety.