Judgment Ravi S.Dhavan and Shashank Kr.Singh JJ. 1. The issue regard being had to the facts and circumstances as are being raised in the present matter had surfaced half a century ago in 1952 by Miscellaneous Case No. 37/52. There is a temple in Mohalla Chunihari tola, P.S. Kotwali in the town of Bhagalpur known as Radha Raman Kunj Bhawan Divyadesh Malchak, Chunihari tola, Rameshwar Narain Agrawal Road. The temple was made by an endowment. The deed was dated 28 June, 1940. 2. The issue raised in this petition basically is on who should be the Sebait at the temple. Whatever be the lis between the parties it is. all within an ecclesiastical order. In the case of a void on the office and position of a Sebait the proceedings are under the Bihar Hindu Religious Trusts Act, 1950 (Bihar Act 1 of 1951). The order of the 2nd Addl. District Judge, Bhagalpur dated 6 July, 1995 is a proceeding which has arisen under this Act but it is not the first order arising out of the only proceeding. The matter has been litigated between Sebaits in the case which was numbered as Misc. Case No. 37/52. The then Addl. District Judge, Bhagalpur by his order of 23 February, 1957 referred the matter under section 113 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 on the ground of vires of section 48 of Bihar Hindu Religious Trusts Act, 1950 as Civil Reference No. 1 of 1957 to the High Court. The High Court upheld the constitutional vires and sent the matter back to the lower court for a decision on merits. 3. In this order the court is not taking the name of the priest who may have been vying for the position at the temple as a Sebait. After the parties had been heard a particular priest was removed from the office of the Sebait by the order of the 2nd Addl. District Judge, Bhagalpur dated 8.12.1959. The matter was brought to the High Court by a M.J.C. No. 910 of 1959. A declaration had been sought in the matter before the High Court that the Trust be declared as having been endowed as a private trust and not a public trust. The High Court held the trust to be public and affirmed the order of the lower court and dismissed the case. A declaration had been sought in the matter before the High Court that the Trust be declared as having been endowed as a private trust and not a public trust. The High Court held the trust to be public and affirmed the order of the lower court and dismissed the case. This decision is reported in A.I.R. 1960 Patna 148. The order of the High Court was affirmed by the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 645 of 1964 by an order of 4 November, 1965. Thus, at this stage two aspects need to be taken care of. The enactment known as the Bihar Hindu Religious Trust Act, 1950 having been held to be intra vires and the trust in question having been held as a public trust must be accepted as such. These issues cannot be opened again and again to prevent the final selection of a Sebait, which occasioned the appointment of a Receiver. This was the order of 13 December, 1965 by the 2nd Addl. District Judge, Bhagalpur. This order was challenged by one of the priests before the Patna High Court as Misc. Appeal No. 382 of 1965. The High Court dismissed the appeal and the order for appointment of the Receiver was upheld. On 19 February, 1973 the 2nd Addl. Sessions Judge, Bhagalpur held that none of the priest claiming to be appointed as a Sebait could be appointed and, thus, directed the receiver to continue. This order was challenged by one of the priests before the High Court by filing a Misc. Appeal No. 89 of 1973. He was joined by another priest whose appeal was numbered as Misc. Appeal No. 99 of 1973. Misc. Appeal No. 89 of 1973 abated. Misc. Appeal No. 99 of 1973 was allowed and the order of the lower court was set aside and the matter was remanded for passing an order on the appointment of a Sebait. 4. Then the matter proceeded on the original case which had been numbered as Misc. No. 37 of 1952 for the appointment of a Sebait. By the time, the evidence was over, only two priests remained in the fray. The 2nd Addl. District Judge, by his order dated 10 November, 1981 appointed one priest as a Sebait. Against this order the other preferred a writ petition; this was C.W.J.C. No. 3280 of 1982. No. 37 of 1952 for the appointment of a Sebait. By the time, the evidence was over, only two priests remained in the fray. The 2nd Addl. District Judge, by his order dated 10 November, 1981 appointed one priest as a Sebait. Against this order the other preferred a writ petition; this was C.W.J.C. No. 3280 of 1982. The writ was dismissed by the High Court but during its pendency two orders had been passed; one dated 1 September, 1982 and the other 1 October, 1982. The orders were, to the effect, that while the priest appointed would continue in possession of the trust property he would not alienate any assets of the trust nor deal with the moneys which were to remain in a Bank deposit. The writ was dismissed by an order dated 19 December, 1991. One of the priest filed a Special Leave Petition No. 14530 of 1992 before the Supreme Court. A caveat had been entered in the Supreme Court also. The caveator-respondent died during the pendency of the proceedings on 21 July, 1992. Thereafter, the Supreme Court, in effect, directed the District Judge, Bhagalpur that the matter be examined on the appointment of a Sebait on merits. The proceedings were taken up by the District Judge, Bhagalpur. Upon remand from the Supreme Court, parties addressed themselves before the 2nd Addl. District Judge, Bagalpur. Parties filed pleadings, they led evidence and cross-examined each other. In the end, the 2nd Addl. District Judge, Bhagalpur gave his decision dated 6 July, 1995. By this decision after having examined the matter threadbare and by further giving his considered consideration on the best suitor on the position of a Sebait, the Addl. District Judge observed: "37. In the result, Pandit Keshavacharya is therefore, ordered to be appointed as sebait/Mahanth of the temple of Behariji, situated in Muhalla Chuniharitola,. P.S. Kotwali, District Bhagalpur, known as Radha Raman Kunj Bhawan Divya Desh Malchak, Bhagalpur. The Receiver is, therefore, directed to make charge to Swami Keshavacharya." 5. This long drawn issues between temple priests all of whom admittedly belong to an ecclesiastical order must come to an end. A submission was made before the Court that vires of an enactment has been challenged. This aspect is over. 6. The Receiver is, therefore, directed to make charge to Swami Keshavacharya." 5. This long drawn issues between temple priests all of whom admittedly belong to an ecclesiastical order must come to an end. A submission was made before the Court that vires of an enactment has been challenged. This aspect is over. 6. The Court must express its reservations that between priests who have renounced the world and have joined a spiritual order there must be a finality to issues when the matter has seen a passage of litigation from the trial court to the highest court of the land. The controversy on who would be the Sebait of the temple, more so after the matter has been remitted from the Supreme Court, the learned Addl. District Judge, Bhagalpur meticulously examined aspects of the matter. The curtain must now fall. When the issue was brought before the Court in 1952, today after 50 years there can hardly be any doubt that the priests are not the same priests, who were claiming the position of a Sebait. After the declaration that the trust is a public trust, between Sebaits whose life has or will draw to close the baton has to be passed on the another Sebait. Learned Addl. District Judge was only examining as to who would be the best suitor to suit the position of a Sebait. He has answered the question on the matter being remanded from the Supreme Court. There must be a finality to these proceedings and the trust must now function with an element of confidence. The litigation on selecting a Sebait has drawn to a close. Let there be no rivalry amongst temple priests. This negates the tranquility of a dedicated temple. 7. Dismissed. No order on costs.