( 1 ) NEAR the town of Champaner in Halol taluka of Panchamahals District there is a hill called Pavagadh hill. On that hill are situate temples of Kalika Mataji, bhadrakali Mataji, Annapurna Mataji and budhia Darwajani Budhia Mataji. In the village of Champaner there. is a ranchhodji temple and also a Haveli. After the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 came into force the petitioners filled in forms under the said Act sometime in 1952 for registration of two of the temples as public trusts. They did so under protest. That application related to the temples of Kalika Mataji and Bhadrakali mataji. On 6th June 1958 the Assistant charity Commissioner after holding the inquiry ordered the registration of all these five temples and Havali as public trust properties. The order was recorded on Application No. 6892 of 1952. It was the contention of the present respondents that all the aforesaid properties were proper ties of their private ownership. The Assistant Charity Commissioner by his aforesaid order rejected that contention of the respondents.

( 2 ) THE respondents appealed against that order to the Charity Commissioner. The Deputy Charity Commissioner decided the appeal on 23rd October 1959. By his order he set aside the order made by the Assistant Charity Commissioner and remanded the case to the Assistant charity Commissioner for a fresh inquiry. Upon remand the Assistant Charity commissioner heard the parties again and by his order dated 24th August 1960 declared all the aforesaid properties as public trust properties and ordered their registration. The respondents challenged that order in appeal which they filed before the Charity Commissioner who by his order dated 22nd May 1961 confirmed the order of the Assistant Charity commissioner and dismissed the appeal.

( 3 ) THE respondents filed Miscellaneous civil Application No. 19 of 1961 in the district Court at Godhra under Section 72 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 and challenged the said order of the charity Commissioner.

( 4 ) THE learned District Judge, after hearing the parties allowed the application, set aside the order made by the Charity Commissioner and declared that all the aforesaid five temples and the Haveli were not public trust properties. He, therefore, directed that the entries made in respect of the said properties in the register of trusts be deleted.

( 5 ) IT is that order which is challenged by the Charity Commissioner in this appeal.

( 6 ) THERE are immovable properties which are attached to these temples. Lands bearing S. Nos. 154, 206, 232, 282, 263, 432 and 454 of village Alva in panchamahals District are owned by kalika Mataji, the presiding deity in kalika Mataji temple. Similarly, land bearing S. No. 45 of village Arod, another land bearing S. No. 44 of village tarkhanda and a third piece of land bearing S. No. 3 of village Champaner - all in Panchamahals District belong to kalika Mataji. So far as the deities in other four temples are concerned, there are no immovable properties owned by them. Haveli is a building not housing any deity. Mr. Chhaya, appearing for the charity Commissioner, has contended before us that all these five lemples and the Haveli constitute public trust properties within the meaning of that expression used in the Bombay Public trusts Act, 1950. According to him, the facts and circumstances of the case point to that conclusion and the learned District judge was in error in holding that they were not public trust properties.

( 7 ) IN order to examine the contention raised by Mr. Ghhaya, it is necessary to turn to the definitions of the expressions "public trust" and "temple". It is not in dispute before us that except the Haveli all others are temples as understood in popular parlance. The question which has been canvassed before us is whether they are temples within the meaning of that expression given in the said Act. Section 2 (13) defines "public Trust" in the following terms. "public Trust" means an