B.D.Singh, J.

1. This appeal by the Bihar State Board of Religious Trust through its President is directed against the judgment and the decree passed by the Subordinate Judge in title suit No. 44/78 of 1959/64 holding that the properties mentioned in the Schedules of the plaint were personal properties of the plaintiffs and they were not the properties of the Public Trust. The learned Subordinate Judge also set aside the order dated the 28th February, 1959, (Ext 12) passed by Shri M.K. Chatterji, an authority under Sec. 43 of the Bihar Hindu Religious Trusts Act, 1950, (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

2. Mabanth Rambilas Das (original plaintiff-respondent No. 1) and Shri Das (plaintiff-respondent No. 2), the latter Chela of the former, had instituted a title suit on the 27th April, 1959. for declaration that the order dated the 28th February, 1959 (Ext. 12), passed by the authority under Sec. 43 of the Act was illegal and for further declaration that the properties mentioned in Schedules A and B of the plaint were not endowed properties; rather they were personal properties of the plaintiffs.

3. The case of the plaintiffs in brief was that the aforesaid properties were acquired by them and their predecessors-in-interest by dint of their labour. No trust was either public or private ever created with regard to those properties. The plaintiffs in response to the notices issued under Sec. 59 of the Act and under coercion or threat of prosecution had submitted return and had also paid taxes to the Bihar State Board of Religious Trust for sometime. On legal ad- vice to the effect that the Act was not applicable to their personal properties, they filed an application under Sec. 43 of the Act for determination that the Math at Sikandarpur, with the properties attached to it, was in the nature of private property of the plaintiffs and it did not relate to a public trust. However, the authority held that the beneficiaries were general public professing Kabirpanthi tenet, and that the Math properties were in the nature of public religious trust. Therefore, the Act was applicable to the Math. Aggrieved by the said order the plaintiffs under Sub-section (5) of Sec. 43 of the Act instituted the suit to get the above order set aside.

4. A written statement was filed on behalf of the defendant-appellant on the 19th August, 1959, and an additional written statement was filed on the 11th February, 1963. The case of the appellant, as disclosed in those written statements, was that Kabir Saheb, the founder of the Kabirpanth, had established the Kabir Chaura Math at Varanasi with considerable properties donated by the Muslim rulers for propagation of the Kabirpanthi tenet (doctrine). Plaintiff No. 1, according to the defendant, was the Mahanth of the said Kabir Chaura Math at Varanasi and the Math at Sikandarpur with all its properties, including the properties mentioned in Schedules A and B of the plaint, were in the nature of subsidiary Math (branch Math) of Kabir Chaura Math, at Varanasi. Plaintiff No. 1 mostly resided at Varanasi and rarely used to stay at Sikandarpur Math where he used to come only to look after the properties, to meet the disciples there and to propagate the Kabirpanthi doctrine. Plaintiff No. 2 was the Chela of plaintiff No. 1. According to the defendant, the plaintiffs were falsely churning the suit properties as their private and personal properties, although they were public trust properties, meant for meeting the cost of stay of Sadhus in the said Math at Sikandarpur and for propagation of Kabirpanthi doctrine. According to the further case of the defendant, the plaintiffs had submitted returns and paid the taxes, on notices from the Board under Sec. 59 of the Act, and were assessed from time to time. It was further pleaded that the suit was undervalued, the court-fee paid was insufficient, the suit was barred by law of limitation, estoppel, waiver and acquiescence, as also under Sec. 42 of the Specific Re