JUDGMENT 1. - Mr. Thanvi informs that during the pendency of appeal, appellants No. 1 Ratan Lal and No. 2 Chand Mal so also the respondents No. 1 Dal Chand and No. 2 Gishulal have expired. However, as the plaintiffs-appellants as well as the respondents-defendants are prosecuting the litigation in representative capacity under Order 1 Rule 8, the deaths do not affect the proceedings. 2. This appeal is directed against the order dated 2.12.80 passed by Civil Judge, Udaipur who by setting aside the decree passed in favour of the appellants by Munsif find Judicial Magistrate, Bheem on 18.4.77 for possession and mesne profits of four :, hops situated at Deogarh remanded the case back to the trial Court. 3. The present appellants along with Udailal sit) Nathulal filed a suit in the representative capacity under Order 1 Rule 8 professing to represent Shree Shwetamber Murtipujak Samaj, Deogarh on 4.11.66 against the respondents alongwith Kanakmal, Ganeshlal and Tekchand as representatives of Oswal Bade Sajan Samaj, Deogarh. Kanakmal died during the pendency of suit and Ganeshlal died during the pendency of appeal while Tekchand died during the pendency of first appeal. In the first instance as defendants did not appear inspite of service, the suit was ordered to proceed ex-parte on 4.6.67. On application moved on behalf of the defendants, the defendants were permitted to join the proceedings by order dated 10.8.67. Thereafter, the defendants failed to file written statement after taking number of adjournments and their right to file written statement was closed on 23.11.67. However, they moved an application on 23.11.67 under Order 7 Rule 11 raising objection that plaint does not disclose cause of action and suit is barred by time. The trial court after recording evidence decreed the plaintiffs suit deciding all the issues in favour of the plaintiff including the issue No. 4 relating to limitation. 4. Aggrieved, the defendants appealed. The learned Civil Judge, Udaipur who heard the appeal vide his order dated 2.12.88 affirmed the finding of issue No. 2 that the suit shops belong to the temple. However, it was of the view that the trial Court has not properly investigated the issue of limitation and remanded the case for trial afresh. It is this order which is under challenge. 5. However, it was of the view that the trial Court has not properly investigated the issue of limitation and remanded the case for trial afresh. It is this order which is under challenge. 5. Briefly, the facts giving rise to this dispute are that according to plaintiffs there is a Jain Temple in Deogarh known as Keshrayaji Ka Mandir, Near the Temple four shops in dispute are situated which is stated to be property of the temple. The temple and suit shops were originally managed by Jati Shri Amritvijayaji until his death in Samvat 1978. From Samvat 1978 to Samvat 1996 the management of the temple remained with the Panch Oswal Bade Sajan Samaj and thereafter, the m magement came to be vested with the Shwetamber Murti Pujak Samaj, Deogarh. However, while delivering the possession of temple, the respondents who were managing the shops as trustees did not deliver the possession of the shops to the plaintiffs. The suit has been filed to recover the possession of the said four shops along with the mesne profits @ 24 rupees per month. The trial Court decreed the suit for possession and mesne profits @ 12 rupees per annum. Regarding issue No. 4 relating to question of limitation the trial Court held that Section 10 of the Limitation Act applies to the present case and therefore, there is no period of limitation prescribed for recovering of the property of the trust in question from the respondent who came into possession as trustees and continued to hold it after management of temple was surrendered to plaintiffs. While adverting to the question of *limitation though, the lower Appellate Court has observed that question of limitation is to be decided after investigating into the question relating to the facts whether temple in question is a public trust and who are the trustees, at the same time, the Court also said that during the course of trial on 23.12.71 the temple in question has been registered under the Rajasthan Public Trust Act after due investigation and also under the Registration of Societies Act therefore, second investigation is not required to be gone into the question as to whether the temple is public trust, who are the trustees, who can bring the suit and when the cause of action had arisen. 6. 6. In my opinion once the Lower Appellate Court accepted that the property in question is a property of public trust and the respondents are in posses sit of the property, since before Samwat 1996 the real question which falls for consideration was whether the case is covered by provision of Section 10 of the Limitation Act or not, which could be decided on the basis of findings already accepted by the lower Appellate Court. From the order it does not transpire what further investigation was in the mind of the learned Civil Judge to be held for deciding the issue. In that view of the matter, the lower Appellate Court was not justified in remanding the case by making vague observation that it is required to make further investigation. Therefore, the order of remand for holding the trial de novo is not sustainable. 7. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The order of the Civil Judge, Udaipur dated 2.12.80 is set aside and the lower Appellate Court is directed to decide the appeal afresh in accordance with law. The lower Appellate Court is further directed to decide the appeal within a period of three months from the date of receipt of record. The records of the case may be sent forthwith to Civil Judge who had decided the appeal, who shall transit the same to the District Judge, Rajsamand in whose jurisdiction the Court of Munsif, Bheem comes for deciding the appeal on merits in accordance with law. The parties are directed to appear in the Court of District Judge, Rajsamand on 24th January, 1994. Parties will bear their own costs of this appeal.Appeal Allowed *******