The devolution of office for generations from son to grandson is no doubt prima facie evidence that the office devolves by succession according to the laws of inheritance.

V. RAMASWAMI, J.:- Defendants 4 and 5 in the suit are the appellants herein. The suit was filed by the plaintiff to set aside the order of the Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments, confirming the order of the Deputy Commissioner holding that the plaintiff was not a hereditary trustee of the suit Mariamman temple. Defendants 1 to 3 were the non-hereditary trustees appointed by the Area Committee. The plaintiff's case was that Sri Mariamman temple in Mulla-vasal is an ancient temple, that for the past three generations no one other than the members of his family had ever managed or controlled the affairs of the temple, that his grandfather as hereditary trustee reconstructed the temple in 1899, that for the first time in 1950 one Subramania Iyer was appointed as a trustee by the Endowments Board and that the plaintiff was also functioning as a trustee along with Subramania Iyer. He further contended that his grandfather was a trustee till 1910 when he died and was succeeded by his father Dharmalirsga Ponnapoondar. The plaintiff succeeded as the trustee on the death of his father in 1924 and continued to be a trustee since then. When disputes arose, the plaintiff filed an application before the Deputy Commissioner for a declaration that he is a hereditary trustee. That application was dismissed on 25-10-1960 and the appeal filed to the Commissioner was also dismissed on 5-7-1961. The plaintiff has filed the suit to set aside these orders. Defendants 1 and 3 contended that the suit temple was in management of the villagers, that it belonged to the villagers, that the villagers renovated the temple and that the plaintiff's family had nothing to do with it. Defendants 4 and 5 filed a written statement contending that the allegation in the plaint that the management of Sri Mariamman temple was in the plaintiff's family hereditarily was neither correct nor true, that it was found on enquiry that the temple belonged to the villagers and the villagers had been managing the temple and that any management claimed by the plaintiff was only as one of the villagers. On a consideration of the entire evidence, both oral and documentary, the learned Subordinate Judge of Thanjavur came to the conclusion that the plaintiff is the hereditary trustee of the suit temple and the order of the Commissioner in appeal rejecting the plaintiff's claim was liable to be set aside, and accordingly, decreed the suit as prayed for with costs.

2. The only point that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the plaintiff was the hereditary trustee of the suit Mariamman temple at Mullavasal.

3. The plaintiff has produced a number of documents proving that the plaintiff, his father and his grand-father were in management and control of the temple from long prior to 1900. It is seen from the account books, Exs.A.1, A.5, A.6, A.7 and A.8. produced by the plaintiff in this case, that the plaintiff, his father and his grand-father were effecting repairs to the temple and the compound-wall of the temple. Exs.A.3 and A.4 are the account books maintained by the grand-father of the plaintiff's. Ex.A.4 relates to the year 1899. They contain entries for the disbursement of wages to masons and coolies who were employed for the Tiruppani work. In June 1901, the Kumbhabhishekam of the temple had taken place. The income and expenditure relating to the Kumbhabhishekam had also been entered in these accounts. In Ex.A.2 dated 3-5-1919, which is a copy of the petition filed by Dharmalinga Ponnapoonder. father of the plaintiff, before the IInd Class Magistrate, Nidamangalam, the plaintiff's father had stated that the suit temple was constructed by his father and the Kumbhabhishekam was also performed by him and that the temple management was with him and he had been in possession of the festival hundial for a long time.

Ex.A.8 is an account book for the hundial collections from 1902 to 1949 kept by the grand-father of the plaintiff, subsequently, by