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 I.L.R. 11 Mad. 274 at p. 277. 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.