After examining the relevant provisions of the Act and the Rules and taking into account the , fact that respondents 1 to 3 had not been afforded an opportunity to substantiate their case and no evidence had r been taken by the Assistant Endowments Commissioner which might have prima facie gone to show that the institution was a public one and the said respondents were not hereditary trustees, the High Court held that the concession made on behalf of the appellants herein was well bounded; that it would be reasonable to confine the application of section 27 only to cases where in respect of the disputed institution, there had been a prior determination of the controversial rights mentioned in section 41 and that before the Assistant Endowments Commissioner could proceed under section 27 of the Act to appoint nonhereditary trustees in respect of the religious institution, it was necessary for him to come to a finding that the institution was a public one and there were no hereditary trustees thereof in existence and in order to come to such a finding, he should have completed an enquiry under section 41 which coupled with section 44 provided for a judicial determination of these very questions.