Madhya Pradesh High Court
Devmurti Shri Janki Bhallabh Ji & Ors. vs Krishna Kumar & Ors. on 23 March, 2026
Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
Bench: G. S. Ahluwalia
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:10051
1 FA-230-2004
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE G. S. AHLUWALIA
ON THE 23 rd OF MARCH, 2026
FIRST APPEAL No. 230 of 2004
DEVMURTI SHRI JANKI BHALLABH JI & ORS. AND OTHERS
Versus
KRISHNA KUMAR & ORS.
Appearance:
Shri Santosh Agrawal - Advocate for the appellants.
Shri S.K.Sharma and Shri Yogesh Chaturvedi, learned counsels for the
respondent No. 3.
ORDER
1. This first appeal under Section 96 of CPC has been filed against Judgment and Decree dated 05.03.2004 passed by Tenth Additional District Judge (Fast Track) Court, Gwalior in Civil Suit No. 05A/2002.
2. Since, the controversy involved in this case lies in narrow campass, therefore, it is not necessary to dwell upon the factual matrix in details. The suit was filed by the plaintiffs/appellants for eviction under section 12 (1) (a) (c) & (i) of M.P. Accomodation Control Act. Apart from the other issues one more issue cropped up as to whether the suit is maintainable in absence of registration of the Trust/plaintiff ? The Trial Court after considering the facts and circumstances of the case, held that since the appellants/plaintiffs is an unregistered public trust, therefore, in view of section 32 of the Public Trust Act, the suit is not maintainable and the trial court is not empowered to hear the case. However, the Trial Court also recorded its findings on other issues. Challenging the judgment & decree passed by the trial court, it is submitted by learned counsel for the Signature Not Verified Signed by: SANJAY NAMDEORAO DURGEKAR Signing time: 3/25/2026 5:44:11 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:10051 2 FA-230-2004 appellants that section 32 of the Public Trust Act bars the hearing and decision of the suit. If the Court comes to the conclusion that suit has been filed by an unregistered public trust then it should stay its hand and should direct the plaintiffs to get the Public Trust registered and then to proceed further in accordance with law. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the appellants have relied upon the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Pooranchand vs. Idol, Shri Radhakrishnaji reported in 1978 MPLJ 660. It is further submitted that appellants have filed I.A.No. 1183/2023 under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC for taking additional documents on record and along with this application, the appellants have filed a copy of the order dated 29/06/2018 passed by Registrar Public Trust in case No. 07/2016-17/B-113 (1) to show that the trust has been registered as Public Trust, therefore, it is submitted that this Court should take the said evidence on record and the bar which was contained under section 32 of M.P. Public Trust Act has now stood lifted. It is futher submitted that the evidence recorded by the trial court with regard to the other issues regarding grounds for eviction are nullity. Once the trial court had no jurisdiction to here and decide the suit in the absence of the registration of Public Trust, then it should not have dwelled upon the merits of the case.
3. Per contra, appeal is vehemently opposed by the learned counsel for the respondents. It is submitted by the counsel for the respondents that the respondents have filed reply to the application under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC. The respondents have also filed review against the order dated 29/06/2018 passed by the Registrar, Public Trust, Gwalior and, therefore, it is submitted that since review is pending, therefore, it cannot be said that bar contained in section 32 of Public Trust Act has been lifted. It is further submitted that even otherwise the Signature Not Verified Signed by: SANJAY NAMDEORAO DURGEKAR Signing time: 3/25/2026 5:44:11 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:10051 3 FA-230-2004 trial court has dismissed the suit on other grounds also.
4. Heard learned counsel for the rival parties and perused the material available on record.
5. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Pooranchand (supra) has held as under :-
"(18) We shall not endeavour to determine at this stage whether the temple in the present case is a public or private trust. But we are firmly of the opinion that the trial Court should have first determined whether the trust was a public or private trust and in case it came to a finding that it was a public trust, then it should have decided the defendant's objection whether Section 32 of the Act operated as a bar to the maintainability of the suit unless the trust was registered. We are further of opinion that it must do so now. In case it comes to the conclusion that it is public trust and Section 32 applies, then it must stay its hands and direct the plaintiff to get the trust registered, and then, proceed with the suit in accordance with law after decision by the Registrar."
6. The Supreme Court in the case of Public Trust Shri Geeta Satsang Bhawan vs. Nand Lal and Ors reported in 2017 Supreme (SC) 901 has held that the bar created under section 29 of Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959 applies for hearing and deciding a suit and not in filing the suit. Once the trust is registered under the Act, the bar is lifted, and the court can assume jurisdiction to hear and decide the suit.
7. Section 29 of Rajasthan Public Trust Act and section 32 of M.P. Public Trust Act are reproduced herein below :-
"Section 29 of the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959 , creates a legal bar preventing unregistered public trusts from pursuing litigation. It prohibits courts from hearing or deciding suits filed by trusts required to be registered under the Act, until they comply with registration requirements."
"Section 32 of the M.P. Public Trusts Act, 1951 , mandates that no suit to enforce a right on behalf of an unregistered public trust can be heard or decided by any court."
8. The Supreme Court in the case of Nandlal (supra) has held as under :-
Signature Not Verified Signed by: SANJAY NAMDEORAO DURGEKAR Signing time: 3/25/2026 5:44:11 PMNEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:10051 4 FA-230-2004 "20. Section 29 of the Act, which applies to this case, reads as under "Section 29. Bar against suits by unregistered trust (1) No suit to enforce a right on behalf of a public Trust which is required to be registered under this Act but has not been so registered shall be heard or decided in any Court.
(2) The provisions of Sub-section(1) shall apply to claim of set off or other proceeding to enforce a right on behalf of such public Trust
21. Section 29 creates a bar "for hearing and deciding a suit" filed by the public Trust for enforcement of any of their rights, if the said Trust is not registered under the Act. The bar, therefore, applies for "hearing and deciding a suit and not in filing the suit. In other words, suit can be filed by the unregistered Trust but such suit will neither be heard nor decided by the Court unless and until the Trust is registered under the Act. Section 29 is, therefore, operates as stay of proceedings in the suit so long as the Trust does not get itself registered under the Act
22. A fortorari, the moment the Trust is registered under the Act. the Trial Court would assume the jurisdiction to hear and decide the suit on merits. The bar created under Section 29 of the Act for hearing and deciding the suit is then lifted and ceases to apply to the proceedings in the suit.
23. As mentioned supra, since the appellant (plaintiff) Trust was registered under the Act on 07.02.2013, they acquired a right to prosecute the suit on merits against the respondents. The bar created under Section 29 then would no longer operate to the proceedings of the suit.
24. In our opinion, the Trial Court was, therefore, wholly unjustified in proceeding to hear and decide the suit on merits by passing a judgment/decree. It failed to see the rigor of Section 20 which had taken away the jurisdiction of the Trial Court in hearing and deciding the suit."
9. Therefore, it is clear that once the trial court comes to the conclusion that plaintiffs is an unregistered public trust then it should not decide the suit and it should stay its hand with direction to the plaintiffs to get itself registered under M.P. Public Trust. As already pointed out the bar is against hearing and deciding the suit and not against institution of the suit. As already pointed out the appellants have filed an application I.A.No.1183/2023 along with order dated 29/06/2018 by which the Trust/plaintiff has been registered as a public trust. The bar as contained in section 32 of M.P. Public Trust Act has stood lifted and Signature Not Verified Signed by: SANJAY NAMDEORAO DURGEKAR Signing time: 3/25/2026 5:44:11 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:10051 5 FA-230-2004 therefore, at present there is no bar for the trial court to decide the suit on merit.
10. However, there is another aspect of the matter which has to be dealt with. The trial Court has dismissed the suit on multiple grounds including that the suit is barred under section 32 of M.P. Public Trust Act. Once the trial court in absence of registration of Public Trust was not empowered to hear and decide the suit, then it should not have recorded any findings on the grounds of eviction. Any findings recorded by the trial court are to be taken as nullity and cannot be looked into to adjudicate as to whether the findings recorded by the trial Court were proper or not. However, one thing is clear that the evidence was already recorded but in view of section 32 of M.P. Public Trust Act, the trial Court should not have proceeded further to appreciate the evidence and to adjudicate the case. Under these circumstances, it is held that adjudication of the claim of the plaintiffs with regard to eviction of the respondents was not warranted and in fact it has resulted into nullity which cannot be used for any purpose.
11. Since, the plaintiffs have got themselves registered under the Public Trust Act, therefore, as already pointed out now there is no bar before the trial Court to decide the suit after hearing the parties on the basis of evidence available on record.
12. So far as the question of pendency of review is concerned, it is not the case of the respondents that there is stay on the effect and operation of the order dated 29/06/2018. Further more, mere pendency of the review will not operate as a stay. Under these circumstances, it is held that unless and until the order dated 29/06/2018 passed by the Registrar, Public Trust is set aside, it would hold the field.
13. Accordingly, the judgment and decree dated 05.03.2004 passed by Tenth Additional District Judge (Fast Track) Court, Gwalior in Civil Suit No. Signature Not Verified Signed by: SANJAY NAMDEORAO DURGEKAR Signing time: 3/25/2026 5:44:11 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:10051 6 FA-230-2004 05A/2002 is hereby set aside and the matter is remanded back to the trial court to decide the case afresh after considering the evidence which has already been adduced by the parties. No fresh evidence shall be allowed to be led by any of the parties and the suit shall be decided on the basis of the material which is available on record.
14. It is made clear that the case is not being remanded back with a direction to re-write the judgment, but it is being remanded back because in absence of bar contained under section 32 of M.P. Public Trust Act, the trial Court could not have heard and decided the suit. Therefore, the trial Court is directed to decide the suit without getting influenced or prejudiced by any of the findings recorded by it.
15. Since, the respondents have not disputed the existence of order dated 29/06/2018 passed by the Registrar, Public Trust and it is the stand of the respondents themselves that they have also filed review application against the said order, therefore, for the time being there is no dispute with regard to the existence of the said order. Under these circumstances, it is not necessary for this Court to remand the matter under Order 41 Rule 28 of CPC to enable the parties to prove the order dated 29/06/2018. Filing of the review clearly indicates that existence of order dated 29/06/2018 has not been disputed by the respondents.
16. Therefore, subject to outcome of the review, for the time being, it is held that the order dated 29/06/2018 has to be treated as undisputed and accordingly the trial court is directed to mark it as an exhibit without asking the parties to adduce the evidence in that regard.
17. Parties are directed to appear before the trial Court on 21/04/2026 and no further notice is required. If any of the party does not appear before the trial court then the trial court shall be free to proceed against such absentee in Signature Not Verified Signed by: SANJAY NAMDEORAO DURGEKAR Signing time: 3/25/2026 5:44:11 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:10051 7 FA-230-2004 accordance with law. The trial Court shall decide the suit within six months from the date of first appearance.
18. With the aforesaid observation, this First Appeal is finally disposed of .
(G. S. AHLUWALIA) JUDGE Durgekar Signature Not Verified Signed by: SANJAY NAMDEORAO DURGEKAR Signing time: 3/25/2026 5:44:11 PM