1. As issue involved in both aforesaid First Appeals are arising out of the same impugned judgment and order and as the Appeals are also arising from the common judgment and order of the learned City Civil Judge, they are being heard together and are being decided by this common order.

2. The present First Appeals have been filed being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the common judgment and order passed by the Learned Judge, City Civil Court No.6, Ahmedabad in Civil Misc. Application Nos.470 of 2008 with 630 of 2008 dated 03.02.2009 on the grounds stated in the memo of Appeal contending inter alia that the Court below has failed to appreciate that the basic issue before him was to determine as to whether the Church of North India (for short “CNI”) is the successor and legal continuation of First District Church of Brethren (for short “FDCB”) or not. It is contended that inspite of framing the issue, the findings have not been given. It is also contended that the Court below failed to appreciate the fact that objections raised to the change report were not legal and valid as the Trust was not dissolved on account of any change. It is also contended that the Court below has failed to appreciate the provisions of Section 22 and other provisions of the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950. It is contended that the Court below has failed to appreciate that the change report arise on account of the process of unification, which has been spread over all over the world and there have been unification of the church as stated in detailed in the ground. It is also contended that such unification and the decision to form CNI is taken by the Church of Brethren after due deliberations and discussion at various levels and minutes of such meeting of the Governing body have been recorded, the Resolutions passed by the local body of Church of Brethren have been recorded and it has also been signed by the office bearers, Ministers, Licentiate Preachers and Deacons of the Church of Brethren. It is, therefore, contended that the Court below has failed to approve merger of the Church of FDCB and the formation of CNI with Church of Brethren, USA. It is, therefore, contended that the Court below has failed to appreciate the ratio laid down in case of In re Faraker (1912) 2 Ch. 488 (495), which were sited before the Court below and the provisions of the Bombay Public Trust Act, particularly, Section 2(8), 2(13), 2(18), 10, 11, 12 and 13 of the said Act. It is contended that the Court below has failed to appreciate the Resolution nominating CNI as the successor entity of the Society and the dissolution/merger of the Society are in accordance with the Rules and Regulations and the provisions of Sections 12 and 13 of the Societies Registration Act, 1960. Therefore, it is legal and valid. It is contended that the Court below has failed to appreciate that the 'trust' has an obligation annexed with the ownership of the property would continue but would not be known by the name of Church of North India – Gujarat Diocese if the change is granted. It will also not be resulting in misappropriation of the funds or a breach of trust. It is further contended that the Court below has erred in holding that that the amalgamation can only be made in the manner provided under Section 50 of the Bombay Public Trust Act. It is contended that Section 50 of the said Act is empowering provision enabling the Charity Commissioner to amalgamate trust in the interest of proper management and administration. However, whether the instrument of the trust itself provides for amalgamation, recourse to Section 50 of the said Act would not be necessary and change report under Section 22 of the said Act can be considered. It is, therefore, contended that even after the change report, the FDCB would continue in PTR though for all practical purpose and only name has to be changed of merger. It is also contended that the Court below has failed to appreciate that the delisting of the proper