hereditary trustees, to that effect, no change was communicated and entries were not taken in record by the office of the Assistant Charity Commissioner. From the perusal of the findings recorded by the Assistant Charity Commissioner and the District court, it appears that the notices were issued to Girish Ramchandra Bahulekar. However, it further appears that he did not participate in the enquiry. His brother Shri Narayan Bahulekar, in his statement before the Assistant Charity Commissioner during the enquiry under section 41D of the said Act, has stated that his brother Girish had received the notice of enquiry, however, since he was mentally disturbed, he did not remain present during the enquiry. He further stated in his statement that there is no income to the Trust. He has not visited the temple in last one and half years. He is not aware who had cut the trees standing nearby the temple. His brother Girish is mentally disturbed and therefore he could not perform his duty as a trustee. He himself is interested to work as a trustee. He has admitted in his statement that till date, he has not rendered any services in the temple. The note of his statement has been taken by the District Court in paragraph 12 of the impugned judgment. There is also a statement of Shri Kashinath Trimbak Sane in enquiry under section 41D of the said Act in which he has stated that, if the income earned from the landed property of the temple is given to him then he is ready to work as a trustee. He stated that he has not maintained the accounts of the trust. It is not necessary for this court to refer to their statements extensively since the District Court has referred those statements in paragraph 12 of the impugned judgment. The findings recorded by the District Court in paragraph 12 of the impugned judgment appear to be in conformity with the contentions of
