* 1 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO. 1211 OF 2005 Shrimani Jaisingrao Vishwasrao Ghorpade .....Appellant V/s. Rajaram Ramkrishna Jere & Ors. ......Respondents ======= Mr.Y.S.Jahgirdar i/by. Mr.V.S.Gokhale, adv.for appellant. Mr.V.B.Naik i/by. Mr.P.M.Arjunwadkar, adv.for respondents. CORAM: SMT.R.P.SONDURBALDOTA, J. DATED: 10TH JULY, 2009. P. C: 1. This First Appeal is preferred to challenge correctness and legality of the judgment and order dated 17th April, 2004 passed by the District court, Kolhapur in Misc.Civil Application No.35 of 1994 filed under Section 72 of the Public Trust Act. It is common ground that the appeal though titled as First Appeal is in fact in the nature of Second Appeal and it’s ambit is limited to substantial question of law, if any, arising in the appeal. 2. The dispute in the matter concerns Shri.Kotling Deo of Village- Dattawad, Taluka-Shirol, District-Kolhapur. The appellant claims that the temple is the private temple of erstwhile royal family of Ghorpade. By the impugned order which confirms the order passed by the Joint Charity * 2 * Commissioner, Pune the temple has been treated as a public temple and allowed to be registered as a public trust. 3. The application for registration as a public trust in respect of the temple was filed by respondent no.2 one Sakharam Joshi. Mr.Jahgirdar, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that the only material on record on which both the courts below have treated the temple to be a public trust is a document of the year 1927 which was an application made by the predecessor of Sakharam Joshi to the predecessor of the appellant for funds to renovate the temple. At the relevant time, the ruler could not provide money for the renovation. Therefore, donation was collected by the predecessor of Joshi from general public and the temple was renovated. Mr.Jahgirdar submits that this single fact cannot establish dedication of temple to the general public. Therefore, the findings given by both the courts below that the temple is a public temple is perverse. 4. The decisions of both the courts below show that the application made in the year 1927 is not solitary ground on which the courts arrived at their findings. There are several other circumstances which lead to the same inference. Starting with the application of the year 1927, it is seen that the predecessor of respondent no.2 had made an application to the predecessor of the appellant for funds to repair and renovate the temple in the year 1927. He was then informed by the predecessor of the appellant that he was unable to provide for funds for the purpose. The funds were then raised from the general public and the temple had to be repaired and * 3 * renovated. This would mean that the temple is being maintained not from the private funds of the appellant but from the contribution of the general public. It is also seen that Gat No.989 is given to the Devasthan for its maintenance. This is an admitted fact. As has been rightly held by the courts below that unless it is a public temple no land can be donated by State for its maintenance. Donation of the land at Gat No.989 was not done directly by the appellant but by the then ruler in his capacity as the Government or State ruling his area. The next test for treating the temple as a public temple would be its use by the general public and accessibility to the general public. There is evidence of witnesses that the temple is being used by the general public. Both the courts below have discussed extensively the location of the temple which though standing on the land belonging to the appellant, is directly accessible from the road as it is situate in one corner of the land belonging to the appellant which corner is directly accessible from the road. It is next seen that there is no compound to the temple. Thus, both the courts below have rightly come to the most probable conclusion based on the material before it that the temple is a public temple and not a private temple as claimed by the appellants. There cannot be any interference with these concurrent findings of facts by the courts below. There is also no substantial question of law arising in the matter for consideration of this court. Hence, the First Appeal is dismissed in limine. [SMT.R.P.SONDURBALDOTA, J]