CHANDRAKANTHARAJ, J. ( 1 ) DEFENDANT No. 1 in O. S. No. 221 of 1979 on the file of the Additional munsiff at Mandya is the revision petitioner. He is aggrieved by the order made by the trial court on I. A. VIII which was an application under Order 22 Rule 3 C. P. C. made by the legal representatives of the plaintiff who died soon after the suit was filed and which has been allowed. ( 2 ) THE deceased plaintiff had averred that he was one of the four yajamans in respect of the affairs of Beeradevaru temple which is a private institution and not a Muzrai institution. He was one of its two Archaks as well. The two archaks were performing their duties by customery rights. Defendants 1 to 3 interfered with their performing the said customery rights and therefore he prayed that they should be restrained by issuing permanent injunction. The plaintiff also prayed for a declaration of their customery rights. ( 3 ) THE defendants while admitting that the temple was a private temple of kurabar Community of Kodidoddi village also admitted the customery rights prevailing in the community of that village from times immomerial. They further stated that plaintiff was not a hereditary Archak or Poojary of that temple. But he performed pooja and surpervised j'atra and other festivities as per customs. ( 4 ) WITH that specific pleading by the defendants in their written statement, an issue is bound to be raised as to whether the plaintiff held the office of Archak of the temple in his hereditary capacity. If that is so, it would be premature for the trial court to reject the claim of the legal representatives. Though there was no specific pleading, by necessary implication it is possible to hold that the right to sue survives in the circumstances of the case. Therefore, the view taken by the trial court is correct. ( 5 ) THIS petition is misconceived and is rejected. --- *** --- .