1. The plaintiffs suit is for a declaration that he is the rightful Dharmakartha of the plaint temple and for reinstatement in the office and also for an injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with him in that office. The plaintiffs father was dismissed from the office of Dharmakartha in 1902 and died in 1905. In 1903 a suit was filed by the 1st defendant and another under Section 539, Civil Procedure Code, and a scheme of management was framed in December 1903 under which the defendants were appointed trustees of the temple (O.S. No. 10 of 1903 in the District Court of Kistna). The plaintiff has filed the suit on attaining majority. In this appeal three points arise for determination : - (1) Is the suit maintainable without a prayer for possession of the property belonging to the temple? (2) Can the plaintiff bring this Suit in view of the scheme framed under Section 539, Civil Procedure Code? (3) Has the plaintiff a hereditary right to the office of Dharmakartha?

2. No definite issue was framed on the first point as Mt was not specifically taken in defendants written statement, but there is an issue (No. 9) "whether the plaint is properly stamped" which is