1. The 3rd and 4th defendants contend that the land in question was not dedicated to the public. But the written statement of the defendants (Exh. C) and the other evidence on record completely establish the contrary.

2. The lower court is wrong in holding that the court could remove any of the existing trustees in a suit under Section 539, Civil Procedure Code - see Rangasawmi Naiken v. Vardappa Naiken I.L.R. (1891) M. 462. The direction in the decree dismissing the 3rd and 4th defendants must be set aside. As the office descends by hereditary succession, the trustee cannot be appointed from amongst the members of the family by selection. The defendants Nos. 1 to 4 are all entitled to be trustees. Having regard to the conduct of the members of the family in the past, some being guilty of breach of trust and others of gross carelessness, we concur with the lower court in holding that it is desirable to associate a respectable resident of the village in the management of the trust. The 3rd plaintiff is therefore appointed a co-trustee with the defendants. The scheme framed by the lower court requires modifications in this and some other respects as indicated below:

Clause B(4)