JUDGMENT : N.K. Das, J. - This appeal is u/s 44(2) of the Orissa Hindu Religious Endowments Act of 1951. The Appellants filed a petition u/s 41 of the Orissa Hindu Religious Endowments Act for declaration that the institutions of Sri Balunkeswar Dev and Sri Jagulai Thakurani, Bije Kanhupur under Police Station of Pipili in the district of Puri are public religious endowments without any hereditary trustees. The Respondents challenged contending that the endowment and the properties are Hindu Religious endowments and they are the hereditary trustees. 2. The Assistant Commissioner of Endowments allowed the application of the present Appellants holding that the endowments are public religious institutions and there are no hereditary trustees. 3. The present Respondents appealed against the said decision of the Asst. Commissioner. The Commissioner of Orissa Hindu Religious Endowments set aside the finding of the Asst. Commissioner that there are no hereditary trustees of the Institutions and held that the Respondents are hereditary trustees of the institution. 4. There is no dispute between the parties that the deities and the properties described in the petition are public religious endowments. The only dispute between the parties is whether the present Respondents are the hereditary trustees of these institutions or the institutions have no hereditary trustees. It may be mentioned here that some time before the filing of the application the villagers formed a committee and tried to manage the affairs of the institution. Reliance was placed on Ext. 6 in this respect. Both, the Assistant Commissioner as well as the Commissioner have held that this Ext. 6 is a spurious document and has been created to show that the Appellants were managing the affairs of the institutions and their properties. It has been ultimately held that the Appellants have failed to prove that they have ever taken over management of their own things. No document was produced about this management. No accounts are shown to have been maintained. Therefore, it is rightly held that the Appellants have failed to establish that they were at any time managing the affairs of the deities. 5. In paragraph 4 of the claim petition of the present Appellants filed before the Assistant Commissioner, it is stated that the opposite parties have been recorded as Marfatdars, but they are only Sevaks of the deities. P.Ws. 5. In paragraph 4 of the claim petition of the present Appellants filed before the Assistant Commissioner, it is stated that the opposite parties have been recorded as Marfatdars, but they are only Sevaks of the deities. P.Ws. 5, 6 and 7 have categorically stated that the ancestors of these Respondents as well as the Respondents were managing the affairs of the deities. The document Ext. B also shows that the ancestors of the Respondents have been recorded as Marfatdars of the deities and its properties. Neither party has been able to establish as to who was the founder of the deities and the endowments, But documents as well as evidence of the witnesses, which amount to admission from the side of the present Appellants, clearly establish that the Respondents and their ancestors were managing the affairs of the deities. 6. It is contended on behalf of the Appellants that the decision of the learned Commissioner is to be set aside, inasmuch as he has not categorically hold as to who were the ancestors managing the properties and it devolved by succession. In view of the admission of P.Ws. 5, 6 and 7 and the documentary evidence, it is clearly established that the ancestors of the Respondents were the Marfatdars. Therefore, the irresistible conclusion is that the Respondents are not only Savaks but also Marfatdars. 7. In Dhruba Charan Swain and Others Vs. Jagannath Panda and Another, it has been held that when a founder is unknown and the time of the founder is now known and there is no deed regarding the foundation one has to rely upon the theory of lost grant and has to presume that the system, as is obtaining from the time immemorial, was the system, that has been continuing from the time of the founder. Following the aforesaid principles of this Court, it has also been held in Chintamani Pati Vs. Krishna Chaudra Panda and Others, that when persons have been in possession, since the time of their predecessor, of the properties of the deities as Marfatdars by hereditary right of succession and no outsider ever held such trusteeship, the backward presumption should be invoked that they have been in possession of the marfatdari right of such character ever since the time of the founder. Otherwise, it would lead to fantastic results. There would be difficulty in establishing hereditary trusteeship after passage of time. Otherwise, it would lead to fantastic results. There would be difficulty in establishing hereditary trusteeship after passage of time. The case of Chintamoni Pati was also followed by this Court in Krushna Mohan Panda and Ors. v. Radhashyam Panda and Ors. 1971 (2) C.W.R. 379, It was held in that case that on the finding regarding uninterrupted management for a long time the conclusion should be that the persons in possession had been able to establish their claim of hereditary trusteeship of the institution by satisfying the first aspect of the definition of the term in the Act. A Division Bench of this Court in Raja Bahadur A.N.M.H. Mohapatra v. Bidyadhar Nayak ILR 1971 Cutt. 578 had taken notice of the case of Dhruba Charan Swain and Others Vs. Jagannath Panda and Another, and also of the case of Chintamani Pati Vs. Krishna Chaudra Panda and Others, and it was held that the settled principle is that where the founder is unknown and there is no deed regarding the foundation, but it is proved that a particular family since generations has been hereditarily in control and management of a religious institution without interruption or obstruction by any outsider. It will be reasonable to draw an inference of continuity from the time of the founder on the theory of lost grant, and a presumption may arise as to devolution of the hereditary trusteeship on proof that the family has been in management and canula of the institution since generations. This principle is also retirement by another decision of this Court in Purna Ch. Acharya Vs. Sri Kakhareswar Baidyanath and Others, and it was held that the very fact that the ancestors of one party were recorded as Marfatdars in respect of the institutions, establishes beyond doubt that they were in management. Another decision of this Court in Bhagirathi Mohapatra and Others Vs. The Deity Sukarmala Thakurani and Others, has followed the principles laid down in Chintamani Pati Vs. Krishna Chaudra Panda and Others and Madan Pati and Others Vs. Birabara Das and Others, as well as the case of Raja Bahadur A.N.M.H. Mohapatra v. Baidyanath Nayak ILR 1971 Cutt. Another decision of this Court in Bhagirathi Mohapatra and Others Vs. The Deity Sukarmala Thakurani and Others, has followed the principles laid down in Chintamani Pati Vs. Krishna Chaudra Panda and Others and Madan Pati and Others Vs. Birabara Das and Others, as well as the case of Raja Bahadur A.N.M.H. Mohapatra v. Baidyanath Nayak ILR 1971 Cutt. 578 and it has been held that in a dispute regarding the right of hereditary trusteeship where it is not possible to 'have any direct oral evidence or to have any documentary evidence to trace the line of succession to the office of the trusteeship from days of the founder the principle that a thing or state of things is shown to exist an reference of its continuity within a reasonably proximate time both forward and backward has to be drawn. 8. In view of the consistent decisions of this Court as stated above, and in view of the finding of the learned Commissioner that the family of the Respondents has been managing the properties and the records establish that they are the Marfatdars and no one else is shown to have managed the affairs of the deities at any time, it must be held that the Respondents are the hereditary trustees of the institutions and the endowments. In View of this finding, I do not find any reasonable ground to interfere With the ultimate decision of the learned Commissioner. 9. In the result, the appeal fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. In the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs. Final Result : Dismissed