GAJENDRAGADKAR, J. :- The principal question which this appeal raises for decision is whether the temple of Shree Gokul Nathji at Nadiad is a public charitable temple of the followers of Vallabha cult at Nadiad or whether it is a private temple belonging to the present worshipper, Goswami Shree Mahalaxmi Vahuji.

2. In the suit from which this appeal arises, the Vaishnav devotees of this temple alleged that the temple is a public charitable temple and claimed certain declarations in regard to the properties belonging to this temple. According to the plaintiffs, the idol of Shree Gokul Nathji is a public idol worshipped by the Vaishnava devotees of the place, and the Maharaja or the Maharani, who may be in management of the temple for the time being, is the trustee of the said idol and the temple in which it is worshipped.

3. Public festivals are held in this temple, like any other Hindu public temple, and it is the right of every Vaishnava follower of the Vallabha cult to take part in such festivals and to visit Shree Gokul Nathji for darshan. For the upkeep and maintenance of this temple, lagas or contributions have been paid by the Vaishnava businessmen of the town for more than a hundred years past, and the amount thus collected is intended to be used, and has in fact been used, for the purposes of the temple. The plaint alleged that the Vaishnava devotees of Nadiad had invited Shree Mathuranathji, the direct descendant in the line of Shree Vallabha, to come to Nadiad, and on his arrival he had been put in charge of the worship and management of the temple of Shree Gokul Nathji. Thereafter voluntary contributions and gifts were made by the Vaishnava devotees, and Shree Mathuranathji managed the temple as a trustee during his lifetime. It appears that Mafchuranathji was born in 1806 and he died somewhere in 1865 A.D.

After his death, his son Vrajratnalalji took up the worship and management of the temple. During his regime, the Vaishnava devotees of Nadiad voluntarily levied a laga of Rs.8 per house in 1881 and celebrated 56 bhogs on a grand scale. About this time extensive additions to the temple property were made with the help of voluntary public subscriptions and contributions. Later, whenever any improvement had to be made in the temple or to properties appertaining to it, public funds were similarly raised and the Vaishnava devotees generously responded to appeals for help. In course of time, the temple acquired a garden land with the principal object of supplying flowers for the worship of the deity (Lot No.2). A goshala came to be added, and in this goshala were housed cows for the purpose of supplying milk, curds, and butter for the worship of the deity. In 1882 Shree Vrajratnalalji died, and the management of the temple devolved upon his widow Maharani Vahuji. Prior to his death, Vrajratnalalji had made a will leaving the management of all the properties to his wife. During Maharani Vahujis time, the temple and its properties were managed by the Maharani in consultation with the devotees. This management continued until 1898, when the Maharani adopted Aniruddha. Within a month of this adoption the Maharani died and the management devolved upon the minor Aniruddha. Like her husband, the Maharani herself had made a will giving directions as to the manner in which the temple and the properties should be managed after her death.

This management vested in the panchas of the Vaishnava devotees during the minority of Aniruddha. After Aniruddha became a major, he took charge of the management and continued it during his lifetime. Aniruddha was married, first, in 1908, and when his first wife died, he married again in 1932. Aniruddha died in 1936, and his widow, Shree Mahalaxmi Vahuji, who is defendant 1 to the suit, came into management. The plaint alleged that during his management Aniruddha attempted to acquire the gadi of Jamnagar and in the process of acquiring this gadi he incurred heavy debts. After Aniruddhas de