TAMBE C. J.-The question that falls for consideration is whether absence of notice under section 80 of the Civil Procedure Code to the State Government as well as to the Registrar of Public Trusts is fatal to the suit instituted under section 8 of the Madhya Pradesh Public Trusts Act, 1951. (Act XXX of 1951) (hereinafter called the Act)?. The question arises thus:-

2. There is one Deosthan at Mangrul-Dastagir in Amravati district, which is known as Gajanan Maharaj Sansthan. The appellant Chandrakant filed an application before. the Registrar of Public Trusts, purporting to he one under section 4 of the Act, wherein he claimed that the aforesaid Sansthan was not a public trust, but was a private trust belonging to his family and of which he was a trustee. He therefore prayed that the trust be not registered as a public trust under the provisions of the Act.

3. The Registrar by his order dated 1-3-1955, held that the trust was a public trust and. it appears that an entry to that effect in consequences of the aforesaid finding of the. Registrar was made in the register under section 7 of the Act and was published on the notice board on 8th October 1955. On 3rd December 1955 ap