This section authorises the Commissioner or two or more persons interested . in the endowment with the consent of the Commissioner to institute a suit for a decree for removal of the trustee of a Math or a specific endowment attached to a Math on any of the grounds mentioned therein• The section is similar to s. 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure though somewhat restricted in its operation as to the reliefs which may be claimed : it merely enumerates the grounds on which the Court may, in a suit instituted thereunder, remove the trilstee of a Math or of a specific endowment, if the Conrt is satisfied that the grounds set up exist and also that it is in the interest of the institution to remove the trustee. Grounds (a), (b), (c), (d) and (h) are grounds of personal infirmity of the trustee; grounds (e), (f), (g) and (i) deal with conduct inconsistent with the exercise of the duties of a trustee. Clauses (f), (g) and (h) were inserted by Madras Act XXVII of 1954. Apart from cl. (e) which regards breach of trust as entailing liability for removal, clsl (f), (g), and (i) have been enacted by the Legislature with a view to entail such liability when the trustee of a math is guilty of improper conduct qua property of the math notwithstandmg his special rights in that property. It is urge~ by counsel for the appellants that s. 52(l)(f) which enables a suit to be filed on the score of waste of funds or properties of the institution or application of such funds or properties for purposes unconnected with the institution, infringes the fundamental right of the Matkadkipati under Art. 19{l)(f) of the Constitution. In order to ascertain the true scope of s. 52(l)(f) it is necessary to state the position of a Mathadhipati, 1Jt1a the property of the math. In Arunaokallam Oketty v. Venkataokalapatki GuruBUJamigal (') dealing with the title which a Makant of a math has in the property of the math, the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council observed :
