Judgment : Plaintiff is the appellant. .2. At the time of Inam Settlement, grant of 20 acres and 80 cents in Marudur village in the name of Sri Visveswara Vinayagar temple was confirmed by the Inam Commission and patta was granted to the Archaka. The Archaka was recognised as Dharmakartha. .The lands were in the possession of the Archaka. Archaka-cum-trusteeship of the temple has been hereditarily remaining with the plaintiffs family for generations. Kulandaian was Archaka trustee when the grant was confirmed. On his death, Kandasami his second son became the Archaka trustee since Subramanian his brother pre-deceased him. Kandasami was managing the temple and was in possession and enjoyment of the lands. He died as a bachelor. His elder brother’s son Kulandaisami died issueless. Kulandaisami’s sister is Thayammal whose son-in-law is one Nallasami. The plaintiff is Nallasami’s son. The plaintiff was helping Kulandaisami’ in his duties as Archaka trustee. Kulandaisami had executed a Will on 22. 1948 bequeathing his rights in the temple and rights in another temple in favour of the plaintiff. The plaintiff has thus become the Archaka trustee of the suit temple. He has been performing and maintaining the temple lands and cultivating them. He has been contributing to the Department who has recognised them as the trustee. While so, the Assistant Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments, called for applications for appointment of non-hereditary trustee. It was objected to by the plaintiff. The Deputy Commissioner dismissed the application filed by the plaintiff contending that the plaintiff cannot claim trusteeship as the heirs of Kulandaisami. The appeal preferred by the plaintiff to the Commissioner was also dismissed. The plaintiff has therefore filed the suit. During the pendency of the suit, defendants 3 to 5 were appointed as trustees in the place of the second defendant who was appointed by the Assistant Commissioner as a non-hereditary trustee. The plaintiff has therefore come forward with this suit for declaration with a prayer for setting aside the order of the Commissioner. 3. The first defendant in their written statement contends as follows: There has been no trustee to the temple. Poojari alone has been looking after the temple. The Will under which the plaintiff claims right was not placed before the Deputy Commissioner. It was therefore dismissed. The Commissioner was also pleased to dismiss the appeal. The suit is therefore liable to be dismissed. 4. Poojari alone has been looking after the temple. The Will under which the plaintiff claims right was not placed before the Deputy Commissioner. It was therefore dismissed. The Commissioner was also pleased to dismiss the appeal. The suit is therefore liable to be dismissed. 4. Defendants 2 to 5 have not filed any written statement. 5. On the above pleadings, the trial court has held that the plaintiff is not entitled to hereditary trusteeship and dismissed the suit. 6. Aggrieved over the same, the plaintiff has come forward with this appeal. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff would argue that the plaintiff and his predecessors were acting as poojari-cum-trustee of the suit temple Which owns 20 acres and odd and there is no separate trustee for the suit temple which is a small temple in a village and as the plaintiff belongs to the family of poojari-cum-trustees who have been not only performing the pooja in the suit temple but also maintaining the property belonging to the temple and was in enjoyment of the same, the plaintiff is entitled to be appointed as hereditary trustee and the order passed by the Commissioner therefore is liable to be set aside. According to the learned counsel appearing for the respondent, the plaintiff who claims as a hereditary trustee has not satisfied the requirement of Sec.6(11) of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act and therefore the order passed by the Commissioner is well-founded and dismissed of the suit by the trial court is also correct. According to the learned counsel appearing for the respondents, there is no evidence for unbroken line of succession of poojariship and the plaintiff cannot claim as the hereditary trustee of the suit temple. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent wants to establish that the succession to the office of hereditary trustee does not devolve on the appellant by hereditary right since his father Nallasami was not performing pooja. It is not in dispute that at the time of Inam Settlement, the grant of 20 acres and odd in favour of the temple by name Sri Visveswara Vinayagar temple has been confirmed by the Inam Commission and patta was also granted in favour of Archaka trustee viz., Kulandaisami Gurukkal. Kulandaisami Gurukkal had two sons Subramanian and Kandasami. Subsequent to the death of Kulandaisami Gurukkal, his younger son Kandasami Gurukkal was acting as poojari-cum-trustee. Kulandaisami Gurukkal had two sons Subramanian and Kandasami. Subsequent to the death of Kulandaisami Gurukkal, his younger son Kandasami Gurukkal was acting as poojari-cum-trustee. On his death, his elder brother’s son Kulandaisami was doing pooja and looking after the affairs of the temple. Therefore, the poojari-cum-trusteeship has remained in the family of the original poojari-cum- trustee Kulandaisami Gurukkal cannot be disputed. .8. Kulandaisami son of Subramanian died without leaving any issue. But, the pooja in the temple and the management of the temple properties has not come to an end on his death. When Kulandaisami was performing his right as poojari-cum- trustee, he was assisted by his sister’s son the plaintiff herein. In other words, the plaintiff was assisting his maternal uncle Kulandaisami in performing his poojari-cum-trusteeship. The affairs of the temple have been looked after without any break even though Kulandaisami died issueless. Therefore, the failure of the plaintiff’s father Nallasami Gurukkal to be the poojari-cum- trustee of the suit temple cannot be a ground to hold that the right of poojariship and trusteeship has gone out of the family of Kulandaisami. 9. The question whether the hereditary trusteeship can be claimed by a poojari of a temple came up for consideration in the decision reported in Babu Gurukkal v. The Commissioner for H.R. & C.E. Board, (1964)1 M.L.J. 384 . In the above decision, this Court has held as follows: "Small temples in South India often have only poojaris who, by long custom or usage, look after the affairs of the temples where they serve as gurukkals; they function in adual capacity, namely poojari-cum- trustee. Such a combination of offices is not necessarily opposed to public policy or contrary to law. In the case of such small temples, there is a presumption that the poojari himself is the hereditary trustee and there is nothing illegal in the hereditary trusteeship and poojariship being combined in the same person in such small temples. Such a combination of offices is not necessarily opposed to public policy or contrary to law. In the case of such small temples, there is a presumption that the poojari himself is the hereditary trustee and there is nothing illegal in the hereditary trusteeship and poojariship being combined in the same person in such small temples. When the documentary evidence including the Inam Register shows that for more than three generations the poojariship-cum-trusteeship in a temple was in the same family and descended from father to son and there is no evidence to show that this was not so or could not be so, the presumption is all the greater, and it must be held that the members of the family are hereditary trustees of the temple." It is not the case of the defendant that the plaintiff is not performing his duties as poojari or Archaka of the suit temple. It is also not in dispute that inam Settlement Tahsildar has confirmed the grant in favour of the temple and patta has also been granted to the Archaka trustee viz., the original Kulandaisami Gurukkal. The plaintiff is also one of the family members of the said Kulandaisami Gurukkal, even though he is not a linear grandson of Kulandaisami Gurukkal or great grandson of Kulandaisami Gurukkal. For more than three generations, the poojariship of the suit temple has remained in the same family and has descended from father to son and then to his neview etc. Therefore, when we approach the case on hand in the light of the above decision, we have to necessarily hold that the plaintiff is not only the hereditary poojari of the temple, but also the hereditary trustee of the suit temple. 10. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents would contend that settlement Tahsildar is not empowered to hold whether a person is a hereditary trustee or not in respect of a temple in whose favour the inam grant is confirmed. 10. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents would contend that settlement Tahsildar is not empowered to hold whether a person is a hereditary trustee or not in respect of a temple in whose favour the inam grant is confirmed. But, this argument of the learned counsel appearing for the respondent- Government Pleader is not in conformity with the decision which I have referred above viz., Babu Gurukkal v. The Commissioner for H.R. & C.E. Board, (1964)1 M.L.J. 384 , which lays down that entry in the Inam Register for more than three generations gives room for a presumption that the members of the family in whose name Inam Register stands, are hereditary trustees. A Division Bench of this Court has also held in the decision reported in Muthuswami Gurukkal v. Aiyaswami Thevar, 77 L.W. 129, as follows: "In the case of small village temples where the temple property is of insignificant value and the income is hardly sufficient even to meet the routine expenses of the temple, if the archaka or the poojari is left in the management of the temple lands and the affairs of the temple, without any interference by any of the villagers for a long number of years, it must be presumed that with the consent and acquiescence of the worshippers of the village the poojari is the trustee as well. In our parts, it is frequently found that the office of archaka and a manager of trustee are found united in the same person, that is the Archaka. It cannot be said that where the evidence is consistent with the poojari having acted as the trustee there should be any "further" or "particular" evidence that poojari expressly claimed the right of trusteeship as well." The learned Government Pleader would argue that this ruling may hold good if the property is a small one with insignificant value and income. But, this argument is not a tenable one since in the same decision, we are able to see that there is an observation as follows: "Very recently Ramakrishnan, J. has also taken the same view in App.Nos.237 and 244 of 1960. In that case the temples were small village temples with an endowment of land about 29 acres in extent with an income of Rs.1,000. In that case the temples were small village temples with an endowment of land about 29 acres in extent with an income of Rs.1,000. The learned Judge followed the aforesaid unreported judgment and has held that there was nothing illegal in hereditary trusteeship and pujariship being combined in the same person specially in the case of small temples where there has been no interference or any control by any of the villagers." The extent of the property for which endowment has been made in the above decision being 29 acres, the contention of the learned Government Pleader that only in respect of small extent of properties, the ruling reported in Babu Gurukkal v. The Commissioner for H.R. & C.E. Board, ( 1964)1 M.L.J. 384 and the ruling reported in Muthuswami Gurukkal v. Aiyaswami Thevar, 77 L.W. 129, will apply cannot hold water. It is more so, when there is no disturbance or interference by any of the villagers, and is also no claim. In fact, even the defendants 2 to 5 who have been appointed as the nonhereditary trustees by the Department has not shown any interest in pursuing the matter is seen from the fact that they have not even filed any written statement. Therefore, I am of opinion that the judgment and decree of the trial court holding that the plaintiff has not established that he has been a hereditary poojari and he has not established that he is a hereditary trusteeship of the temple has to be necessarily set aside by allowing this appeal. 11. In the result, the appeal is allowed setting aside the judgment and decree of the trial court and decreeing the suit as prayed for. In the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.