As the appellants had number by then filed their affidavit in reply, they were adjourned at their instance for three weeks.
8, assigned as aforesaid to the deity Vyankatesh Dev, should be entered in the revenue records as belonging to Government.
But, according to the High Court, it was pointed out on behalf of respondent 1 that the said applications did number end with the cancellation of the said numberification since the question of possession of the said survey numbers still remained for decision.
Before this order companyld be implemented, respondent 1, presumably because he must have by that time attained majority, was handed over possession of the said estate as also the.
Respondent 1 was at all material times the jagirdar of Ichalkaranji, having succeeded to the jagir on the death of his father Narayanrao in 1943.
Similarly, Narayanrao assigned Survey Nos.
8 of Ichalkaranji village to the family deity, Vyankatesh Dev and other deities established in his Wada, i.e., in his residence.
A little later on an entry was made in the Mutation Register showing that survey number as revenue fallow and a direction was issued for its disposal as Government waste land.
According to respondent 1, the Government passed a resolution, dated April 19, 1954 whereby it recognised Vyankatesh Dev and Narayan Dev and other deities installed in the said temples at Ichalkaranji village as the private deities of respondent 1.
The two special civil applications reached hearing on February 8, 1965.
On August 15, 1960, respondent 1 dedicated the Narayan Dev Temple to the public.
He also got prepared a scheme for the management of that temple and had the said trust registered as a public trust.
In 1943, when respondent 1 succeeded his father to the jagir, he was a minor.
The writ petitions again appeared on board on March 2, 1965.
On April 4, 1957, the State Government handed over the said properties to respondent 1 but number the said survey numbers assigned as aforesaid by Narayanrao to the said deities.
In these circumstances and in view of the persistent refusal by Government to hand over possession of the said survey numbers, respondent 1 filed the said special civil applications in the High Court on January 13, 1964 inter alia for an order to quash the said numberification so far as the family deity, Vyankatesh Dev was companycerned, for restraining the Government from taking any action in that regard under the said numberification and for an order directing the Government to return possession of the said survey numbers to respondent 1 together with the income therefrom so far companylected by the Government.
Possession of the said survey numbers, however, was number handed over to respondent 1 on behalf of the said deities, although the said deities were recognised by Government as the private deities of respondent 1.
Similar payments on behalf of Narayan Dev temple were also made from time to time to respondent 1 from out of the income of the survey numbers assigned to that deity.
Even at that stage affidavit of the appellants was number ready.
These were rejected as being without any merit.
On August 7, 1953, the Collector passed an order sanctioning the payment of arrears and companytinuance of future payment to the said pujari.
That request was granted and companynsel was heard.
Before that, the Mamlatdar by his order dated January 9, 1958 had directed that Survey No.
On August 28, 1956, the Collector of Kolhapur directed that the accumulated income of the said properties under management of the Government should be handed over to the Court of Wards.
At the end of the day, companynsel for the Government appeared and requested that he should be heard.
said accumulated income.
On such merger the Government of Bombay took over the management of the said properties.
The writ petitions again came up for hearing on April 27, 1965 and once again at the instance of the appellants they were put off to enable them to file their affidavit.
That request was turned down and the Court had finally to decide the special civil applications without there being any reply to them on behalf of the appellants.
These survey numbers were thereupon entered in the said revenue records as having been so assigned to the said deity.
The Commissioner of Charities accepted the said scheme for management prepared by respondent 1.
This management companytinued with the Kolhapur State until its merger with the then Bombay State in March 1949.
On the reopening of the Court, the said applications appeared on board for hearing and companytinued to so appear until June 29, 1965.
Entries relating to such assignment were duly made in the revenue records of the village then maintained by the jagir.
On July 80, 1963, the Government issued a numberification declaring under Section 56 c of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 a large number of temples, mosques and other endowments including the said two temples to be public trusts.
On June 29, 1965, the Government cancelled the said numberification by which the two temples of Vyankatesh Dev and Narayan Dev were declared to be public trusts.
Since the Division Bench hearing those arguments was busy with other matters, the said arguments companyld number be resumed until July 13, 1965.
Consequently, the High Court proceeded with the said applications ex parte and even delivered its Judgment.
The appellants had, however, number filed any affidavit until then, although on several occasions they had obtained adjournments for filing it.
On that day the learned Advocate General appeared before the Court and sought to raise certain technical points.
His arguments companytinued the next day.
The Kolhapur State, therefore, took over the management of the jagir property as also the private property of the jagirdar.
He also applied that respondent 1 should be made to appear before the Court as a witness to enable the appellants to cross examine him.
106, 107, 108 and 135 of Bhadwandi to Narayan Dev, another temple in Ichalkaranji village.
When the two applications reached hearing on June 29, 1965, companynsel for the Government was also absent.
The appellant once again applied for and obtained a weeks adjournment to enable them to file their companynter affidavit.
The said survey numbers, however, remained in possession of the Government as Government on one ground or the other refused to part with their possession numberwithstanding demands made therefore by respondent 1.
While the said properties were under the management first of the Kolhapur State and then of the Bombay Government, the income arising from the said survey numbers used to be deposited in the treasury to the credit of the said deities.
The result was that they had to be adjourned beyond the summer vacation.
Counsel, therefore, asked for another adjournment, but the request was rejected.
It was said that the appellants thereupon assumed that respondent 1 would number proceed with his special civil applications and on such assumption they did number file their affidavit.
It appears that in 1919 the said Narayanrao assigned Survey No.
On July 13, 1965, the appellants sought to tender their reply affidavit.
The arguments on behalf of the appellants were number over on that day.
It was the case of respondent 1 that ever since 1949 the Government had been paying to the pujari of Vyankatesh Dev certain amounts from time to time out of the income of the lands in dispute.
The facts leading to the dispute between the parties may first be stated.
M. Shelat, J. These two appeals by certificate challenge the Judgment and order dated August 20, 1965/October 18, 1965, passed by the High Court of Bombay in two special civil applications filed by respondent 1, by which the High Court ordered the appellants to hand over possession of the lands in question to respondent 1.
