( 1 ) THESE five appeals are being disposed of by this common judgment. The details of these appeals are set out below in the tabular form: @@@ high Court District Civil Name of Land S. N. Area appeal No. Court Suit purchaser Appeal No. No. 1 2 3 4 5 _ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ 233 34 184 patel Nanu Out of 532 A. G. Ladhu 7. 00 out of 448/1 A. G. 0. 3 Devpara. 234 33 183 patel Dhiru Out of 532 A. G. Ladhubhai 7. 18 Devpara. 235 31 181 patel Popat 6421 A. G. 4. 26 parshottam daya 236 30 180 patel Narshi 372 A. G. 10. 27 ladhu devpara. 237 32 182 dalwadi Narsi 410/2 A. G. 2. 17 rughnath pansina. _ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _@@@

( 2 ) THE Deputy Charity Commissioner. Rajkot had held enquiry under sec. 19 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act 1950 The question involved was whether the suit properties mentioned in Col. No. 5 above in the table were trust properties or whether they were the personal properties of the respondent No. 2 in all these appeals Bhatt Bhalchandra Ratanji who happens to be the brother of the plaintiffs-appellants. The Deputy Charity Commissioner by his order dated 31-7-1965 held that these suit properties were the public trust properties belonging to one Haveli Mandir of Limbdi. The above application was contested by Bhalchandra as well as the present appellants his two brothers. The matter ultimately came to be confirmed by this High Court in the first appeal No. 700/70 decided on 25-7-75.

( 3 ) DURING the inquiry before the Deputy Charity Commissioner the three brothers the plaintiffs-appellants and Bhalchandra had contended that the temple in question was of their ownership and the properties in question were their private properties. During the pendency of those proceedings before the Dy. Charity Commissioner the respondent No. 2 Bhalchandra had transferred all those fields to different purchasers who are the contesting defendants as shown in Col. 4 of the above table. The plaintiffs who were in the management of the temple that came to be registered as a public trust property along with the suit fields then filed these various suits for taking back those fields. They did so obviously in their capacities as trustees. They had impleaded their brother Bhalchandra as a co-defendant. Both the trial court and the District Court dismissed those suits and the matters had therefore come to this High Court by way of present Second Appeals. C. V. Rane J. of this Court by his judgment dated 17/18-9-75 had allowed all those appeals and decreed the plaintiffs suits for possession. The contesting purchasers had therefore preferred various appeals being the Civil Appeal Nos. 707/76 and 1299 to 1302 of 1977 in the Supreme Court. By the judgment dated 20 all those appeals were allowed and these appeals before this High Court were remanded on a limited question. The Supreme Court in this connection has observed as follows:"the Haveli Mandir Limbdi was the owner of the lands which are the subject matter of the present proceedings. The said lands were owned in Barkhali right by the Mandir; that these were owned by the Mandir and not by the private individuals who laid claims to them was established by the adjudication of the charity commissioner in this behalf. However possession of the lands had been transferred under sale-deeds executed by one of the three brothers who claimed private ownership of the lands in question namely Bhalchandra. The Charity Commissioner directed the trustees appointed under the Bombay Public Trust Act 1950 to bring a suit and recover possession of the trust property in the hands of the alienees who happened to be the defendants/appellants. The defendants/appellants raised various questions including adverse possession by their predecessor Bhalchandra. They also raised a question that under the Saurashtra Barkhali Abolition Act 1951 occupancy certificate bad been is