1. The District Munsif has found the plaintiff is the Archaka and that it is with his permission that the sites of houses in the village of Ramagiri are occupied. There is also an averment in the plaint that 1st defendant built a house on the plaint site No. 2 on condition of quitting it when desired by plaintiff. In the absence of any other trustee, the Archaka may be doing the duties of Dharmakarta, as is urged by appellants pleader to be the case here. If either the averment in the plaint or the allegation that plaintiff has been doing the duties of Dharmakarta be true, plaintiff is entitled to maintain the suit. The Calcutta case relied on by the District Judge is not in point, as the object (sic) the plaintiff in that suit is stated to have been to "oust the M(sic)wali, got herself appointed in his place and have the properties vested in her," Latifunissa Bibi v. Nazirun Bibi I. L. R, 11 C, 36; whereas the present suit is brought for the purpose of recovering property on behalf of the temple by one who professes, and is found by the District Munsif, to have been managing the affairs of the temple all along. The cases cited on. behalf of respondent, Wajid Ali Shah v. Di