Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

tion in such form as has been prescribed.

5. Section 17 of the Act provides for registration of a Public Trust. The application for registration has to be in a prescribed form and has to contain the particulars about the urgent nature and object of Public Trust and the designation by which the Public Trust is or shall be known, the place where the principal office or the principal place of business of the Public Trust is situate, the name and address of the working trustee and the Manager, the mode of succession to the office of the trustee, the list of movable and immovable trust property and such description and particulars as may be sufficient for the identification thereof, the approximate value of the movable and immovable property etc.

7. Section 19 of the Act provides that on completion of the inquiry provided for under Section 18, the Assistant Commissioner shall record his findings with the reasons therefor as to the matters mentioned in the said section.

8. Section 20 provides for an appeal against the finding of the Assistant Commissioner. Any working trustee or person having interest in a Public Trust or in any property found to be trust property, aggrieved by a finding of the Assistant Commissioner under Section 19, may within two months from the date of its publication on the notice board of the Assistant Commissioner, file an appeal before the Commissioner to have such findings set aside or modified.

10. It is in this setting that Section 22 of the Act provides for a Civil Suit against the entries made under Section 21. It provides that any working trustee or the person having interest in a Public Trust or any property found to be the trust property, aggrieved by any entry made under Section 21 may within six months from the date of publication thereof on the notice board of the office of the Assistant Commissioner under subsection (1) of Section 21 institute a suit in a Civil Court to have such entries cancelled or modified.

11. The aforesaid provisions of the Rajasthan Act and Sections 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 of the Madhya Pradesh Act are pari materia.

12. The question arising in this case is whether "person having interest" mentioned in Section 22 can be a person who has interest adverse to the Public Trust and who is claiming the property found to be the trust property to be his own property and not the Public Trust property.

13. In Abdul Karim Khan v. Municipal Committee, Raipur Supra the plaintiffs, residents of a locality belonging to the Muslim community filed a representative suit under Order 1, Rule 8, C.P.C. for a permanent injunction against the Raipur Municipality claiming that the suit land was Old Kabristan registered under the Madhya Pradesh Public Trust Act and was a trust property and as such the Raipur Municipality could not claim any right or title to the said land. The Raipur Municipality disputed the claim. It was contended that the suit land was given to the Municipality by the State Govt. on a fixed rent and the Municipality had constructed some school buildings on the same. Several issues were raised, but the issue relevant for the purpose of this case related to the registration of the plot in the register kept under the provisions of the Trust Act and its effect. The plaintiffs contended that the registration of the plot as a trust property in the register of the Registrar of Trust was conclusive against the Municipality and in favour of the plaintiff. The trial Court rejected the contention. Appeal of the plaintiffs was dismissed and a second appeal was also dismissed by the High Court. The matter then went to the Supreme Court. It was contended before the Supreme Court that, if any person, who claims interest in the property which is alleged to be the trust property, fails to satisfy the Registrar about his claim, he can file a suit under Section 8(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Act. The provision allows a suit to be filed subject to the condition prescribed by it and right to file such a suit is given to the working trustee, or a person having interest in a Public Trust or any property found to be the trust property. The Municipality was interested in the property in suit which was found to be the trust property and since it did not avail itself of the right to file a suit within the specified time, the order passed by the Registrar must be held to be final and conclusive against its claim. If finality did not attach to such an order even after 6 months had expired within the meaning of Section 8(1) then the provision contained in Section 4(5) will serve no purpose whatsoever. After examining the entire scheme of the Act, the Supreme Court rejected the contention. Observations in paragraphs 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14 in Abdul Karim's case supra conclude the issue. It would be useful to reproduce relevant excerpts from them to understand the full meaning of the decision at pages 1746-1747.