( 1 ) THE most important and interesting question that arises in the present appeal is whether the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain and hear the present suit in view of the provisions of the Act.

( 2 ) MR. Oza submitted that the authority contemplated under the Act has no jurisdiction to decide such a question regarding the title claimed by a third party over the suit property. Such a suit filed by a third party for declaration of his title to the suit property is not barred by the previsions of the Act. Mr. Oza contended that the legislature did not leave such a question to the authority under the Act for its decision. In support of his submission Mr. Oza has laid considerable emphasis on two decisions of the Bombay High Court - (1) Shri Adinath Tirthankar Jain Mandir v. Shri Shantappa Dada Madnaik 67 Bombay Law Reporter 49 and (2) Keki Pestonji Jamadar v. Rodabai Khodadad Merwan Irani 74 Bombay Law Reporter 198.

( 3 ) AS against these decisions Mr. A. H. Thaker Assistant Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the Charity Commissioner (Respondent No. 3) has relied upon several reported and unreported decisions of this Court and on the basis of those decisions and the relevant provisions of the Act submitted that the trial Court has reached its conclusion correctly on this issue.

( 4 ) THE first reported decision of this Court is the case of Kuberbhai Shivdas v. Mahant Purshottamdas Kalyandas 2 Gujarat Law Reporter 564 J. M. Shelat J. (as he then was) has considered the entire scheme of the Act and observed at page 567:"the inquiry held by the Deputy or the Charity Commissioner under Section 19 is by no means an administrative or an executive inquiry". It is further observed:. ". . It is also clear that the inquiry is not only for the purpose of registration for such an inquiry would involve adjudication of questions such as whether a trust exists if so whether such a trust is a public trust whether the applicant is a trustee the mode of succession to that post and what is still more far reaching in importance whether a particular property belongs to such a public trust. The entries to be made by the Assistant Charity Commissioner are as I have said to be made on the basis of the findings arrived at by him in an inquiry held under Section 19 Though these findings and entries are made conclusive under Section 21 (2) the legislature has provided remedies where it is subsequently found that a change in such entries is necessary. Section 22 provides for such a change in the entries. Mr. Vakil however contended that the plaintiffs would have no right under Section 22 to apply for a change in the entries on the ground of fraud or dishonesty of the 1st defendant. That no doubt is true because Section 22 confines itself to a change which has occurred after an entry is made under Section 21. It appears however that realising that there was a lacuna in the Act the legislature amended the Act by Bombay Act No. LIX of 1954 and by Section 2 of that Amendment Act inserted Section 22-A in the Act. The new Section provides that if at any time after the entries are made in the register under Section 21 or 22 it appears to the Deputy or the Assistant Charity Commissioner that any particular relating to any public trust which was not the subject-matter of the inquiry under Section 19 or sub-section (3) of Section 22 as the case may be has remained to be inquired into he may make further inquiry in the prescribed manner record his findings and make entries in the register in accordance with the decision arrived at and the provisions of Sections 19 20 21 and 22 would apply to such inquiry with regard to the recording of the findings and the making of the entries in the Register. But it was argued by Mr. Vakil that the expression any particular relating to any public trust which was not the subject-matter of the inquiry under Section 19 or Section 22 (3) would not mean the subject-matter of the previous inquiry which