JUDGMENT 1. We think the District Judge was wrong in disposing: of the suit ?without finding whether the plaintiffs father had acquired a valid title to the trusteeship by adverse possession. The Will (Exhibit B) recites that the Dharmakartaship was hereditary in the testators family and provides that as he had only daughters and no sons, his daughters son should be Dharmakarta in his place. We think the plaintiffs father, if he took under Will, must be considered to have prescribed for the estate which the Will purports to confer upon him, viz., that of a hereditary trustee, and that if his title was perfected by adverse possession he must be considered to have held a hereditary trusteeship with all the incidents attaching thereto including the plaintiffs right of succession on the occurrence of 1 vacancy Gopinadha Pande v. Ramachandra Punigrahi 6 M.L.J. 255. 2. We may add that an attempt was made to question the validity of resignation of the plaintiffs father and the consequent vacancy in the office, but we refused to go into this of being opinion that no such question had been raised in the lower Courts and that the validity of the resignation had been assumed by all parties. We must accordingly set aside the decree of the District Judge and remand the case for disposal according to law. Costs will abide the event.