JUDGMENT - G.N. VAIDYA, J.:---The appellants are the plaintiffs who sued for a declaration that the suit properties were their an central properties and the defendants have no concern with the said properties and that they be restrained from taking income of the said properties. The defendants are claiming the properties which belonged to Shri Sitaram Deo Mandir of Pandharpur. The suit was decree by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Pandharpur on August 31, 1960. That decree was set aside and the suit was dismissed in an appeal filed by the defendants on November 12, 1962 by the Second Extra Assistant Judge, Sholapur, as he found that the suit properties were held by the Assistant Charity Commissioner to be properties of the public trust. Feeling aggrieved by the said decree passed by the learned Assistant Judge the plaintiffs filed the above appeal. 2. During the tendency of the above suit an application was filed before the Assistant Charity Commissioner, Sholapur which came to be transferred to deputy Charity Commissioner, Bombay. He held that the trust was a public trust and the properties were public trust properties. The said order was confirmed in appeal before the Joint Charity Commissioner. Against the said decision an application was filed under section 72(1) of the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950, and the learned Assistant Judge, Sholapur, who heard the said appeal by his judgment and order dated November 18, 1974, a certified copy of which filed in this Court by the appellant, allowed the application partly and declared that the suit properties were properties of the plaintiffs and not the properties of the trust. 3. The above second appeal was pending during the said proceedings under the Bombay Public Trust Act. On October 24, 1969, in Civil Application No. 2950 of 1969 filed in the second appeal, this Court directed the trial Court to nominate receiver and to give directions to the receiver regarding the expenses of cultivation incurred by the defendants. 4. In view of the judgment and finding of the learned Assistant Judge dated November 18, 1974, it is clear that the suit properties must be held to be not public trust properties and, therefore, the private properties of the plaintiffs. 4. In view of the judgment and finding of the learned Assistant Judge dated November 18, 1974, it is clear that the suit properties must be held to be not public trust properties and, therefore, the private properties of the plaintiffs. Under section 21(2) and section 80 of the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950, the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to decide or deal with any question which is by or under the Act required to the decided or dealt with by any officer or authority under the Act and in respect of which the decision or order of such officer or authority has been made final and conclusive. In view of the decision of the learned Assistant Judge, under section 72 of the Bombay Public Trust Act, therefore the decree passed by the learned Assistant Judge, in this case, must be set aside and the decree passed by the trial Court must be restored. The Receiver appointed by this Court who is now in possession of the suit properties must, therefore, be directed to restore the possession of the suit properties to the plaintiffs along with the amounts which may be lying in Court or with the Receiver as the income of the said lands and the Receiver appointed by the trial Court shall submit his report for discharge to the trial Court. 5. But it is submitted by Mr. Pinge that such an order should not be passed firstly because there is no live issue between the plaintiffs and the defendants which can be triable by the Civil Court and, therefore, the decree for injunction cannot be passed; Secondly because the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to grant an injunction in respect of the matter which is sub-judice with the authority under Bombay Public Trust Act and the defendants desire to file an appeal against the decision of the Assistant Judge under section 72(4) of the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950. 6. In support on his argument Mr. Pinge has relied on a decision of the Supreme Court in (Loknath Padan v. Birendrakumar Sahu)1, 1974(I) S.C.J. 717, which has no relevance as that case was decided under the Representation of People Act (43 of 1951). In the present case there is living an issue between the defendants and the plaintiffs a stop whether the suit properties are private properties of the plaintiffs or properties of the public trust. In the present case there is living an issue between the defendants and the plaintiffs a stop whether the suit properties are private properties of the plaintiffs or properties of the public trust. Although the Civil Court have no jurisdiction to decide whether the property was a public trust property ore not once it is held that they are not public trust properties, it is for the Civil Court to decide whether the plaintiffs are entitled to an injunction to restrain the defendants, which they have asked for on the basis that the suit properties are their private properties. The issue is, therefore, very much alive in the Civil Court between the parties. The Civil Court must pass a decree as prayed for by the plaintiffs restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiffs possession. Possession is to be restored to the plaintiffs by the Receiver, as the Receiver was appointed by the Civil Court previously decision under the Bombay Public Trust Act. 7. The Second reason given by Mr. Pinge is also without any substance because, as stated above, the authorities under the Bombay Public Trust Act have considered whether the properties are public trust properties or not and decided that they are not. They are not concerned, with the injunction, if once they come to the conclusion that the provisions of the Public Trust Act are not applicable and the properties are not for the public trust whether injunction is to be given or not is a question which can only be decided by the Civil Court and that question has been rightly decided by the trial Court in this case who held that the plaintiffs proved the title to the suit properties and that finding was confirmed in appeal by the Second Extra Assistant Judge, Sholapur. The finding of the courts below which have appreciated evidence are not be interfered with in second appeal. 8. However, Mr. Pinge, submits that the parties have not yet obtained certified copies of the judgment for the purposes of filing an appeal and that they have a right for filing the appeal under section 72(4) of the Bombay Public Trust Act and that right will be completely defeated if the Receiver appointed by this Court is directed to deliver the possession of the suit properties to the plaintiffs along with the income which is lying with him. 9. 9. It is true that the defendants have a right to appeal against the judgment of the Assistant Judge to this Court under section 72(4) as if the decision of the Assistant Judge was a decree from which an appeal ordinarily lies to this Court. Under Article 116 of the Limitation Act, 1963, the period for filing an appeal to the High Court under the Code of Civil Procedure in 90 days from the date of the decree and hence Mr. Pinge is right in his submission that the status Quo should not be disturbed during the said period. 10. For the above reasons the Second appeal must be allowed. The decree passed by the trial Court is to be restored and the decree passed by the Second Extra Assistant Judge on November 12, 1962 must be set aside. The Receiver who was appointed by the trial Court in pursuance of the orders of this Court in Civil Application No. 2950 of 1959 shall hand over possession of the suit properties along with the income which he has in his custody to the plaintiffs on or after March 1, 1975 without prejudice to the rights and remedies available to the defendants in the appeal which they will be filing in this Court or they can file in this Court under section 72(4), if and when they file it, including their right to move this Court in such an appeal for directing the Receiver to continue in possession if necessary. The Receiver to deliver possession of the suit properties to the plaintiffs and obtain his discharge form the trial Court so far as the civil litigation in this Second Appeal is concerned. 11. Second appeal is allowed. The decree passed by the learned Assistant Judge is set aside and the decree of trial Court is restored. The plaintiffs to get costs throughout. The restoration of the trial Court decree shall be without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the defendants in the appeal, if any which they may file under section 72(4) of the Bombay Public Trust Act and in the event of defendants succeeding in the appeal in establishing that the properties were public trust properties the injunction as per this decree shall automatically stand vacated. Subject to what is stated herein above, the Receiver to restore possession of the suit properties to the plaintiffs with the income in his hand on or after March 1, 1975. -----