S.N.Hussain, J.

1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. The petitioner is plaintiff of Title Suit No. 370 of 1989 which was filed by Sarva (sic) Mangala Devi Trust (herinafter refered in as the Trust for the sake of brevity), though its Managing Trustee Prem Shankar Chaudhary after serving notice u/s. 28 of the Bihar Hindu Religious Trust Act. 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for the sake of brevity), against the Bihar State Board of Religious Trust thereinafter referred to as the Board for the sake of brevity) and its Special Officer (opposite parties Nos. 1 and 2) for declaration that the Trust is a private trust and is not a public charitable trust and the Board or its authorities had no jurisdiction to exercise superintendence or control over the Trust or to Interfere with the management and administration thereof as the provisions of the Act had no application to private trusts.

2. The plaintiff petitioner in aggrieved by the impugned order dated 4-7-2000 passed in the aforementioned Title Suit No. 370 of 1939, by which the learned Subordinate Judge 3. Patna City rejected his petition dated 30.10.1998 for directing the opposite parties to remove their locks put on the two wooden entrance gates of M/s. Gayatri Oil Mills located in the Dharamshala compound of the Trust.

3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Trust was a private trust managed by its trustees and the Board never interfered with the line of succession of the trustees, who were chosen from the descendant? of the founder of the Trust from time to time. He has further staled that in 1940 some immovable properties of the Trust were given in lease for ten years by the trustees to the lessee which was extended for a further period of ten years as per the terms to the lease which finally expired In the year 1966. whereafter the trustees filed Title Suit No. 274 of 1966 for ejectment of the lessee, which was decreed by the trial Court on 13 11-1976 with damages etc. and thereafter the lessee lost in all the appeals filed by him against the said decree.

4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner also averred that three of the their trustees of the Trust were won over by the said lessee and hence they acted against the interest of the Trust and encouraged the tenants to pay rent to the lessee even after the said decree and hence they were removed by the Trust and finally delivery of possession was affected in favour of the Trust in Ex. Case No. 24 of 1977, but the said removed trustees, being aggrieved by their removal as well as by the ejectment of the lessee, contacted the Board with frivolous assertions, on the basis of which the Board issued notice to the petitioner and the Minister Religious Trust called for the record of the Trust through the Department of Law for the purpose of changing the Managing Committee of the Trust, although they had no jurisdiction to interfere with the control and management of the private trust.

5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further stated that in the above circumstances he filed the said suit, namely, T. S. No. 370 of 1989, but the defendants, namely, the Board and its authority, did not file their written statement for several years and in the meantime the petitioner filed an injunction petition for restraining the said defendants from interfering with the functioning and management of the Trust, whereupon the Board although gave its undertaking on 13-8-1990 (Annexure-1) but did not file its show cause and hence the learned Court below by its order dated 28-8-1990 (Annexure-1/A) directed the defendants to maintain status quo till the disposal of the title suit. Learned Counsel for the petitioner also stated that much later the defendants (the Board and its authority) filed their written statement and also filed show cause on 18-9-1991 pressing it for rehearing the injunction matter, whereafter it was reheard and by order dated 17-2-1992 (Annexure-1/B) the Court below directed both the parties