Judgment : The unsuccessful plaintiff has filed the above appeal. 2. The plaintiff filed the suit in O.S.No.382 of 1979 on the file of the Sub Court, Tiruchirappali seeking a decree to declare that he has right of managementship and correspondentship of the Saraswathi Elementary School, Thenur, Perambalur Taluk, Trichy District and consequently entitled to get all the arrears of Rs.10,531.83 towards the teaching grants-in-aid and for accounts. He has also prayed for direction, directing the defendants to change the managementship and correspondentship of the said school to the name of the plaintiff and for restoration of the staff and school children in the Union School to the said Saraswathi Aided School, Thenur, Perambalur Taluk, Trichy District. .3. The case of the plaintiff/appellant is that one Sri.V.Narasimha Iyer established and administered the Saraswathi Aided Elementary School for boys and girls upto V Standard till 1955 and the said school was recognised by the Government. He transferred the said school and its management in 1955 to one R.M.Muthiah Pillai, the father of the plaintiff. He was managing the said school as correspondent till 1973. On 7. 1973 the 1st defendant withdrew the recognition of the said school. The said Muthiah Pillai filed a writ petition in W.P.No.5163 of 1973 and this Court set aside the withdrawal of recognition on 7. 1973, holding that it is illegal and void. According to the plaintiff the said order has become final. The plaintiff claims that by way of order dated 19. 1973 the withdrawal of recognition was stayed. According to the plaintiff, soon after the withdrawal of recognition, the 1st respondent transferred all the staff and the school children to the Panchayat Union School, which was started afresh. After the death of the said Muthiah Pillai, as his eldest son, the plaintiff applied on 15. 1978 to the 1st defendant to change the management of the school to his name in the place of his deceased fathers name as a follow-up action. But the 1st defendant wrote to him that he was not the recognised person in respect of the school. But, ultimately, in view of the abovesaid facts, the plaintiffs has come forward with the present suit for the said reliefs. 4. The 1st defendant filed written statement and contested the suit. But the 1st defendant wrote to him that he was not the recognised person in respect of the school. But, ultimately, in view of the abovesaid facts, the plaintiffs has come forward with the present suit for the said reliefs. 4. The 1st defendant filed written statement and contested the suit. According to him, the suit is not maintainable as the plaintiff has no authority or right to file the case against the defendants. According to him, the plaintiff is not the manager and correspondent of the said school. The 1st defendant referring to the fact that on the date of the judgment in the writ petition, the said Muthiah, the then correspondent was not alive and so the said judgment will not give any right to the plaintiff for the purpose of change of management. It is also specifically stated in the written statement that the right to such an office of the manager and correspondent of the said school is not conferred by hereditary process or by any other process known to law. It is also contended that the claim of the plaintiff for grants-in-aid from 11. 1973 to 30.11.76 is barred by limitation. The 3rd defendant also filed written statement on the same line. 5. The trial court framed as many as ten issues and one additional issue. After considering the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence it found that the order passed in the writ petition is valid and binding on the defendants, that the plaintiff has no right of management and correspondentship of the school and the suit as framed is not maintainable, that the plaintiff is not entitled for grants-in-aid and that the plaintiff is not entitled to the restoration of staff and school children to Saraswathi Aided Elementary School. On the basis of the above findings, the trial court dismissed the suit and so the plaintiff has filed the above appeal. 6. Thelearned counsel appearing for the appellant has mainly argued about the plaintiffs right to file the suit, and his entitlement for transfer of the management. 7. It is not in dispute that the said Muthiah Pillai was the manager and correspondent of the said school. When the recognition of the said school was withdrawn, he filed the writ petition in W.P.No.5163 of 1973 challenging the said order. 7. It is not in dispute that the said Muthiah Pillai was the manager and correspondent of the said school. When the recognition of the said school was withdrawn, he filed the writ petition in W.P.No.5163 of 1973 challenging the said order. Though the defendants tried to challenge the correctness of the order of this Court, the trial court has rightly rejected the same. Since the said Muthiah Pillai filed the said writ petition only as manager and correspondent of the said school, merely on the basis that he died before the passing of the order, and his legal representatives have not been impleaded, it cannot be contended that the said order will not bind on the defendants and it has no legal effect. The writ petition was filed for the benefit of the institution and consequently the order was passed for the benefit of the school. So merely because of his death before the pronouncement of the order, it cannot be said that the said order is void and not binding on the defendants. So, the trial court is correct in deciding issue No.3 in favour of the plaintiff. 8. The trial court has rejected the appellants case only on the basis that the management and correspondentship of the school can not be acquired by succession. Such a finding of the trial court cannot be sustained in view of the following decisions of the Supreme Court and this Court. .9. While considering whether the hereditary trusteeship is a property, the Apex Court in the decision in C.Sethurayar v. Arumanayakam C.Sethurayar v. Arumanayakam C.Sethurayar v. Arumanayakam , A.I.R. 1969 S.C. 569 has held as follows: .“Assuming without deciding that the expression ‘property’ used in Act II of 1929 does not include a trusteeship right still it is a well established proposition of law that succession to trusteeship similar to the one before us is governed by the ordinary rules of inheritance in certain respects and the same alteration must be recognised in regard to succession to trusteeship as well.” 10. V.Ramaswami, J., as he then was, following the said decision of the Supreme Court in C.Sethurayar v. Arumanyakam C.Sethurayar v. Arumanyakam C.Sethurayar v. Arumanyakam , A.I.R. 1969 S.C. 569 and the Full Bench decision in Manathunainatha v. Sundaralingam , (1970)2 MLJ. 156 : A.I.R. 1971 Mad. 1 in the decision in Narayana Pillai v. Dharmar , (1972)1 MLJ. V.Ramaswami, J., as he then was, following the said decision of the Supreme Court in C.Sethurayar v. Arumanyakam C.Sethurayar v. Arumanyakam C.Sethurayar v. Arumanyakam , A.I.R. 1969 S.C. 569 and the Full Bench decision in Manathunainatha v. Sundaralingam , (1970)2 MLJ. 156 : A.I.R. 1971 Mad. 1 in the decision in Narayana Pillai v. Dharmar , (1972)1 MLJ. 15 has held as follows: “It will, therefore, be seen from the foregoing discussion that in the absence of the founder himself prescribing a line of succession and no special custom to the contrary pleaded or proved, it is the general law of intestate succession, applicable to the last holder of the office, that would be applicable for succession to the office of trusteeship. Who these heirs are, has got to be determined according to the law in force at the time when succession opens. Each trustee succeeds to the right by virtue of his being an heir to his immediate predecessor and not the original founder. If there was a law governing the intestate succession to the private property of the last office-holder, ipso facto it was that law that would be applicable to determine succession to trusteeship. Any alteration in the general law of inheritance must be recognised in regard to succession to trusteeship as well. For the applicability of the general law of intestate succession, it is immaterial whether the trusteeship was property or not. 8. It is, therefore, clear that the instant cases are governed by the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, and the heirs of Subramania Pillai, who are his son (1st defendant), daughters and widow, are entitled to succeed to the trusteeship.” 11. In the Full Bench decision referred to in Manathunainatha v. Sundaralingam , (1970)2 MLJ. 156 : A.I.R. 1971 Mad.1 it has been held as follows: “These decisions recognise the right of the founder to dispose of the Dharmakarthaship in any particular way, If there has been no such disposition, in the absence of any usage or custom of a different nature, the office like any other species of heritable property follows the line of inheritance from the founder.” 12. In view of the settled principles of law, the trial court, is not correct in holding that the plaintiff cannot succeed to the management and correspondentship of the said school. In view of the settled principles of law, the trial court, is not correct in holding that the plaintiff cannot succeed to the management and correspondentship of the said school. The trial court also has erroneously proceeded on the basis that the said Muthiah Pillai did not transfer the management during his lifetime to the plaintiff. Since the plaintiff had applied for transfer of the management in his name, which was rejected by the 1st defendant, the plaintiff has come forward with the present suit. Since the plaintiff is the eldest son of the deceased Muthiah Pillai, who was admittedly the correspondent of the said school, the plaintiff is entitled for the declaration of his right of management and correspondentship of the said school, and consequently, he is entitled for a direction to the defendants to change the managementship and the correspondentship of the said school in the name of the plaintiff. 13. With respect of the other relief, the learned counsel for the appellant has not seriously argued, and so the judgment and decree of the trial Court with respect to the other reliefs are confirmed. 14. For the foregoing reasons, the judgment and decree of the trial court are modified, granting the relief in favour of the appellant/plaintiff with respect to the declaration that he is having a right of managementship and correspondentship of the said school, and the defendants are directed to change the managementship and correspondentship of the said school, in the name of the appellant/plaintiff. The appellant/plaintiff on the basis of the declaration and consequential direction, has to approach the authorities for other reliefs which be is entitled to on that basis. This appeal is accordingly allowed only to that extent, and in other respects, this appeal is dismissed. No costs.