This Second Appeal is at the instance of original plaintiffs. The suit was initially decreed by the trial Court but was dismissed by the first appellate Court. The appellants and the respondents shall hereinafter be referred to as plaintiffs and defendants.

2. The facts giving rise to the appeal are as follows:

There is a trust known as Hanuman Deosthan in Navi Shukrawari at Nagpur. One Bansilal Teli was the disciple of Haridas Baba. Haridasbaba took Samadhi some 70 years ago. The said Saint had a Math in house No. 873 Circle No.3 at Nagpur. The Padukas (Foot Print) of the said Baba were installed in the said building and the Pooja was being offered there. The said Bansilal was the Chief Wahiwatdar of this Math. Before his death in 1944 he asked his wife Yashoda to look after and manage the Math. Since he had grown old he had also directed that she should appoint a Panch Committee to manage the affairs of the said Math, she remaining one of the trustees. In 1946 Yashoda executed a document and registered it by which a Panch Committee came to be appointed. Some 5 Panchas were appointed besides Yashoda. All 5 Panchas except Ramjiwan Kaluaram are now dead. Thereafter one Babalu and Chhotelal Pardeshi assumed the office of the Sarpanch and in that capacity applied for registration of the Trust under the M. P. Public Trust Act. The property in the schedule which is described in the plaint was one of the properties registered with the public trust office. Later when Vidarbha Region was included in the State of Maharashtra the Trust came to be registered under the Bombay Public Trust Act also and has a Registration No. A-50(N). One Chhotelal Pardeshi thereafter had submitted the Change Report to the Charity Commissioner Nagpur which came to be rejected as there was no proper mode of succession available. Hence some persons from the locality applied for a settlement of a Scheme. Deputy Charity Commissioner settled the scheme and appointed 5 persons as trustees. The plaintiff is the said trust which owns the suit property. Original defendants 1 and 2 are in occupation and possession of the suit property. They have no right, title and interest in the suit property. It is contended that plaintiff had issued notice to defendant No.2 calling upon him to pay rent of Rs. 110/- per month. Defendant No.2 denied that he was a tenant and claimed that he was simply living with his father. Notice was thereafter issued to defendant No. 1 the father of defendant No.2 and rent was demanded. Since the defendants have denied the title the plaintiffs claim possession of the suit property.

3. Defendants had filed common Written Statement. The defendants contend that plaintiff has no locus standi to file the instant suit as no permission of the Charity Commissioner was taken. Defendants deny that Bansilal was Wahiwatdar of the Math. It is contended that the document executed by Yashoda is sham, bogus and nominal. Defendants do not however dispute that Chhotelal had applied for registration of the public trust known as Hanuman Deosthan. Defendants however deny that the suit property is shown as trust property in the register of trust. Defendants deny that the suit property is the property of the Presiding deity of Hanuman Deosthan. Defendants are in occupation of the property since 30 years. They are paying the taxes. They submit that they are the Wahiwatdar and they are taking care of the Pooja which is offered there and the festivals that are celebrated there. It is contended that defendant No.1 has been Wahiwatdar of the said property which is a private trust property openly, peacefully and without interruption for more than 30 years. In the additional pleadings the defendants contend that defendant No.1 was disciple of Haridas Baba. When defendants found that the house in suit was found cared for he started occupying the house and started performing Pooja and Aarti of the Paduka of the said Haridas Baba. He was maintaining the house in proper