1. It is argued that the finding that the plaintiffs family had an hereditary right to the office ought not be accepted, and our attention is drawn to Exhibits I, II, F, III, IV and V, and also to Exhibits 0, VI to XVIII. Nothing is urged to show that they have been misconstrued, or not duly considered by the Court below. Exhibit I only shows that the award A was not thought to favour the claim set up by the then plaintiff. The words in exhibit II "you should act with consent, &c," are not inconsistent with the plaintiffs case. They only imply that in the conduct of the puja, the son was to act subject to the direction and control of the mooktessors. As regards Exhibits F and III, the ground on which the suit to which they refer was dismissed was that there had been a prior partition- Though the District Munsif dealing with the review petition remarks that "the office is dependent on the pleasure of the dharmakartas," we cannot say that the Courts were wrong in not attaching weight to the remark in the face of the other evidence in the case. As to Exhibits IV, V and N, the Subordinate Judge is not in error in saying that the finding in Exhibit N was not set aside by the Hig