JUDGMENT

SEN, J. :— This appeal on certificate from the judgment and decree of the Karnataka High Court dated April, 5, 1971 raises a question of general public importance. The question is whether two or more trustees of a registered public trust can, with the permission in writing of the Charity Commissioner as provided for in S. 51 of the Act, bring a Suit for declaration that certain property belongs to the public trust and for possession of the same from a person holding it adversely to the trust under .S. 50(ii) of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950. That depends on whether the words person having interest in the trust occurring in S. 2(10) and S. 50 of the Act do or do not include the trustees of a registered public trust. If they do not, two or more trustees cannot file a suit as contemplated by S. 50(ii) of the Act. There had been a divergence of opinion in the High Court as to the precise meaning of the words persons having interest in the trust in, S. 2(10) and S. 50 of the Act and as conflicting views had been expressed by different Benches from time to time, the matter was referred to a Full Bench. The correctness of the view taken by the Full Bench is in question in this appeal.

2. Put very briefly, the essential facts are these. Shree Gollaleshwar Dev is an ancient temple and is situate in village Golgeri in the district of Bijapur which formed part of the erstwhile State of Bombay prior to the reorganization of the States. Consequent upon the enactment of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950, the temple was registered as a public trust. The district of Bijapur became part of the new State of Karnataka on the appointed day i.e. November 1, 1956 under the States Reorganization Act, 1956. The Act has continued to remain in force in the areas which formed part of the erstwhile State of Bombay.

3. It had been customary for the trustees to permit persons rendering services to the temple to reside in the suit premises on leave and licence.. The subject-matter in dispute consisting of arches alongside the eastern, northern and southern walls of the temple are meant for the use of devotees for their temporary rest and stay, when they come to visit the temple. The main temple itself is situate in the middle surrounded by an open courtyard. The suit premises being within the four walls of the temple, they form part of the temple and are entered in the certificate of registration as belonging to the temple.

4. It appears that plaintiff No. 2s uncle Mariyappa Lingappa permitted one Balalochanayya Hiremath to reside in a part of the suit premises as he happened to be a man of saintly pursuits and one without a family. Subsequently, Balalochanayya left the premises occupied by him. Thereafter, plaintiff No. 2s father as the trustee employed two brothers, Rachayya and Gurunandayya to perform services for the temple and he assigned the suit premises to them for their residence with a view that they should be available to occupy the premises free so long as the trustees allowed them to remain in occupation and so long as they were retained in the service of the temple. They were to remain in occupation of the suit premises as licensees of the trustee of the temple. Rachayya and Gurunandayya started asserting rights derogatory to the trust. Accordingly, plaintiff No. 2s father as the trustee filed Civil Suit No. 96 of 1935 in the Court of the Joint Civil Judge, Bijapur and the learned Civil Judge by his judgment dated August 8, 1936 decreed the plaintiffs claim. The defendants went up in appeal to the Court of the District Judge in Regular Appeal No. 109 of 1936 but the appeal was dismissed on November 22, 1937. Thereafter, plaintiff No. 2s. father terminated the services of Rachayya and Gurunandayya and called on them to vacate the suit premises, which they did. After Rachayya and Gurunandayya were, removed from service of the temple, Shantayya, brother of Rachayya and Smt. Shankarawa, widow of Gurunandayya were taken in service of th