JUDGMENT

K. RAMASWAMY, J.:- This appeal, by leave under Art, 133, granted by the High Court, arises from the Division Bench judgment of the Gujarat High Court in First Appeal No. 417/64 dated August 25/29, 1972 reversing the decision of the District Judge, Panchmahal in O.M.C.A. No. 19/1961. Near the town of Champaner in Halol Taluka of Panchmahal District, there is a hill called Pavagadh Hill. On its top Kalika Mataji, Bhadrakali Mataji, Annapurna Mataji and Budhia Darwajani Budhia Mataji temples are situated. Another temple by name Ranchhodji along with the Haveli is also situated in the main village which are the subject matters of these proceedings. The High Court held that Kalika Mataji temple is a public trust and a public temple within the meaning of S. 2(13) read with S.2(17) of the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 ( for short the Act) and set aside the contra declaration of the District Judge. The Assistant Charity Commissioner was directed to conduct de novo injury in regard to other temples, finding that the joint enquiry held by the Assistant Charity Commissioner has led to "prejudicial and lopsided results."

2. The facts for our decision are as under:

The appellants predecessors were called upon and under protest made an application under S.18 of the Act for registration of the temples as Public Trust. By order dated June 6, 1958, after conducting an enquiry, the Asstt. Charity Commissioner held that the five temples and Haveli as Public Trust properties. On appeal the Dy. Charity Commissioner in his order dated October 20, 1959, remitted for fresh inquiry. Thereafter the Asstt. Charity Commissioner after inquiry, by his order dated August 24, 1969., reiterated that the temples and Haveli to be public trust properties and accordingly ordered their registration under the Act. On appeal, the Charity Commissioner in his order dated May 22, 1961 confirmed the same and dismissed the appeal. On further appeal under S. 72, at the instance of the appellants, the District Judge declared that all the five temples and Haveli are private properties and directed deletion of their registration under the Act. As stated earlier, the High Court reversed and upheld the registration of Kalika Mataji temple as a public trust property and remitted for fresh inquiry in respect of other four temples and Haveli.

3. Sri Yogeshwar Prasad, the learned senior counsel contended that the District Judge had elaborately considered the entire evidence from the factual matrix to conclude that Kalika Mataji Temple and other temples are private temples and that, therefore, they are not public trust properties for being registered under S. 18 of the Act. He had taken us through the entire evidence, judgments of the District Court and the High Court. He contends that the High Court had not correctly applied the legal tests laid by this Court in adjudging Kalika Mataji to be public temple which was refuted by Sri Bhatt, senior counsel appearing for the respondents and Sri Verma for the intervener who has been permitted to argue the mater by specific order in that behalf. We have gone through the judgment of the High Court and that of the District Court, scanned the entire evidence on records and given our anxious consideration to their respective contentions.

4. The question emerges whether the Kalika Mataji temple is a Public Trust. The High Court after exhaustively subjecting the entire material evidence to close scrutiny concluded thus:

(1) It (Kalika Mataji temple) is very ancient temple more than thousand years old.

(2) Its origin is lost in antiquity. It is not possible to rely upon the evidence of witness Chandramukharam and witness Pavinbhai that about a thousand years ago their ancestor Devshankar had the vision of Mataji at that place and that he had constructed that temple for his own worship. They cannot have knowledge of events which took place a thousand years ago. We are, therefore, of the opinion that so far as the origin of the temple is conce