Original plaintiff Ramangiri Amritgiri Goswamy, since deceased, now through legal heirs, instituted a suit for declaration and injunction that he had hereditary right as Pujari in Unai Mata temple at village Unai, Taluka Vansda. He having failed before both the courts below, presented this appeal under section 100 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 to challenge the judgment and order dated 10th November 1986 passed by learned Assistant Judge, Valsad at Navsari.

2. At the time of admission of the appeal, this court framed following substantial questions of law:

"(1) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Appellate Judge has not erred in not giving effect to Exh.76, as evidencing the right of the deceased Plaintiff-Ramangiri Amrutgiri and his legal representatives to act as Pujaris of "Shree Unai Mata" temple and to appropriate the income of the offerings to the Deity except on the days of "Chaitri Fair" and "Makarsankranti"?"

(2) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the courts below have not erred in finding that the suit for declaration of the hereditary right of the plaintiff as Pujari was not maintainable without permission of the Charity Commissioner?"

3. The relevant facts of the case may be mustered at the outset. The original plaintiff in his suit instituted on 7th April 1977 before the court of Senior Civil Judge (S.D.) Valsad, put forth a case that the temple of Unai Mata in village Unai, Taluka Vansda, originally belonged to Vansda State, wherein, according to the plaintiff, his ancestors worked as Pujaris, and worshiped in the temple since the times of the erstwhile State. By giving pedigree of his ancestors, the plaintiff averred that the successive ancestors had inherited the right as Pujaris in the temple. It was claimed that after his ancestor Laxmangiri, his son Uttamgiri, thereafter son of Parsottamgiri being son of Uttamgiri, in the next, his son Motigiri, and thereafter, Motigiri's son of Amrutgiri, and the plaintiff Ramangiri inherited the right. It was the case that the lands around the temple were Inam lands, which were entered in the name of Pujari since 1982. Upon merger of Vansda State into State of Bombay, a registered trust came into existence and the Mamlatdar, Vansda, by virtue of his office, became sole trustee of the temple. It was contended that the registration of public trust was undertaken behind his back. It was claimed that Mamlatdar, Vansda, has declared that the Inam land was in occupation of the Pujari, and further that the Pujari was to take all the produce/income of the temple, except on two festival days, namely Chaitri Poornima and Makar Sankranti. It was contended that disregarding his right as Pujari as above, the Mamlatdar passed order dated 6th August 1976, removing him as Pujari and taking away his hereditary right to do Puja as well as of taking income of the temple. In the suit, the State Government, the Collector Valsad, and the Mamlatdar, Vansda, were arraigned as the defendants.

3.1. The defendants filed Written Statement at Exh.11, wherein it was contended that the temple was registered as a public trust under the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act'), and therefore, the suit of the plaintiff was not maintainable without permission of the Charity Commissioner. The case of the plaintiff claiming hereditary right as Pujari was denied, and it was stated that the plaintiff was an employee of the temple appointed in 1933 on payment of salary, and that since then he was working as part-time Pujari in the temple. He used to discharge the duties of Pujari for two hours in the evening, and was paid total Rs.22/-per month by way of salary. It was denied that the erstwhile State of Vansda has granted the land as revenue free grant to the plaintiff. It was denied that after merger of the Vansda State, the lands were continued to be given to the Pujari on hereditary basis. It was stated that any entry in this reg