The District Judge has the power to appoint a receiver under Section 48 of the Bihar Hindu Religious Trusts Act, 1950, and the provisions of Order 40, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure apply to religious denominations.

S.N.P.Singh, J.

1. This appeal is directed against the order dated the 13th of December, 1965, passed by the 2nd Additional District Judge, Bhagalpur, in Miscellaneous Case No. 37 of 1952. By the aforesaid order the learned 2nd Additional District Judge made an ad interim order of injunction restraining the present appellant from making disposal of the properties belonging to the temple of Sri Biharjiee absolute. He further passed an order for the appointment of a receiver for the temple of Sri Biharjiee and its properties pending the appointment of a new Shebait.

2. The order under appeal has been passed by the learned Additional District Judge in the following circumstances. On the 15th of September, 1952, the three respondents to this appeal filed an application in the court of the District Judge of Bhagalpur under Sec. 48 of the Bihar Hindu Religious Trusts Act, 1950 (Bihar Act I of 1951). hereinafter referred to as "the Act", for the removal of the appellant from shebaitship, for rendition of accounts by him and for appointment of a new Shebait in his place on the ground of mismanagement of the trust properties, misappropriation of the trust funds, unauthorised transfers and mala fide acquisition by the appellant of properties in the Benami name of others with the income of the temple properties. That petition gave rise to Miscellaneous Case No. 37 of 1952. The appellant denied the allegations made by the respondents in their application and further urged that the Act was ultra vires and unconstitutional. Mr. Brahmadeva Narain, the then Additional District Judge of Bhagalpur, heard the case and by his order dated the 23rd February, 1957, found the appellant guilty of misfeasance. He held, inter alia, that the appellant wrongly diverted a part of the temple fund to finance a new Vidyalaya started by him; that his natural relations had all along received subsistence and help from the temple fund; that he pawned the ornaments of the deity and in order to cover his fault he instituted a false criminal case alleging theft of the ornaments and that he maintained no accounts for the years 1941 to 1947 and wrongly claimed some of the properties belonging to the deity as his personal properties. The learned Additional District Judge arrived at the conclusion that the appellant had acted in a manner prejudicial to the interest of the deity and took the view that in the interest of the trust, he should not continue as shebait of the temple in question. The learned Additional District Judge further held that the temple was a private temple but it came within the purview of the Act as the endowment created for the worship of the deity in the temple in question was a religious trust. On the constitutionality of Sec. 48 of the Act, he expressed the opinion that it was void and inoperative and accordingly he stated a case under Sec.113 of the Code of Civil Procedure for the opinion of the High Court on the question whether the provision of Sec. 48 of the Act was void and inoperative and pending the decision of the High Court he reserved his findings on the questions whether the application under Sec. 48 of the Act was maintainable and whether the Act was ultra vires the Bihar Legislature.

3. The reference (Civil Reference No. 1 of 1957) made by the learned Additional District Judge was disposed of by the High Court on the 21st of October, 1959, and it was held that the provisions of Sec. 48 of the Act were constitutionally valid and operative. The opinion of the Court was forwarded to the Additional District Judge and the records were sent back to him for disposal in accordance with law. Thereafter the case was heard by Mr. Rash Bihari Prasad Sinha, another Additional District Judge of Bhagalpur, who, in the meantime, succeeded Mr. Brahmadeva Narain. The learned Additional District Judge by his order dated the 8th of December, 1959, allowed the miscellaneous case and directed the appellant to be removed from Shebaitship. He furth