MANJULA CHELLUR, J.—Heard the learned counsel for the appellants.

2. The appellants before us are aggrieved by the order of the Deputy Commissioner dated 22.9.2009 wherein he rejected the request or the representation to recall the order of appointment of Administrator dated 5.6.2009 and hand over the Management of the temple insofar as ‘Bhoothasthana’ is concerned to the appellants herein as they are claiming the hereditary rights over the said Management of ‘Bhoothasthana’ in the temple in question.

3. At the earliest point of time in O.S. No. 26/1932 one Thyampa Naika and Narayana Shetty were the hereditary trustees of Shastava Brahma temple and declared ‘Bhoothasthana’ as accepted temple in the said suit. Subsequently in the year 1961 in O.S. No. 25/1960 plaintiff-K. Laxminarayana Udupoa representing his family, the third defendant -Kittappa Rai representing his family and the sixth defendant-Kanthappa Semitha representing his family were held as joint hereditary trustees of the said Brahma temple. One Gangadhar Rai, the present appellant filed an application on 27.11.2001 to declare him as the hereditary trustee/succeeding member of Mundabettu family having acquired the rig