(1.) M.F.A No. 170/77 is by the unsuccessful applicants for being appointed as trustees, whereas M.F.A. No. 282 of 1977 is by the trustees that existed before the fresh applications for appointment of trustees were made.
(2.) The brief facts leading up to the present appeals are these:
(3.) This Court in the direction given in the earlier judgment has specifically enjoined on the District Judge to as certain and decide as what is the minimum number of trustees for the temple. The learned District Judge, therefore, should have first decided that point. While deciding that point he should have taken into consideration the statutory provisions in that behalf contained in S. 47 (2) of the Bombay Public Trust Act as it then existed. It reads: