AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
5 paragraphs · 120 words
1.
A person like the defendant in the present case holding the office of manager of a temple, though he possesses no hereditary right and is subject
to the superintendence of a committee appointed under Act XX of 1863, has been held to be a trustee Sethu v. Subramanya ILR 11 Mad. 274 .
A claim against such a person for damages said to have been caused by his neglect in the discharge of his duties as manager must, therefore, be
held to be a suit relating to a trust falling under Article 19 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts'' Act.
2.
The answer to the question submitted is that the suit is not cognizable by a Small Cause Court.