Prashant Kumar Mishra, J.

1. The instant second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been preferred by the Plaintiffs whose suit for declaration and permanent injunction was dismissed by the trial Court, however, the appellate Court declared the title of the suit property in favour of the Appellant No. 1, Deity and dismissed the claim of the Plaintiff No. 2/Appellant No. 2 for a declaration as Sarvarakar of Plaintiff No. 1, Deity/temple.

2. Plaintiff No. 1 is the Deity of Sinhwahini Devi, Sinhwahini Mandir, Rajapara, Kanker and Plaintiff No. 2/ Appellant No. 2 claims to be the Sarvarakar of Plaintiff No. 1. The following reliefs were claimed in the suit:

(i) Plaintiff No. 1 be declared the owner of land situated at 10 khasra numbers bearing an area of 30.00 acres at Village Banspattar and the temple situated on Nazul Plot No. 15 area 211 Square Meters.

(ii) Plaintiff No. 2 Laxminarayan be declared the Sarvarakar of Plaintiff No. 1, Deity.

(iii) The registration of public trust by Defendant No. 1, State of Chhattisgarh through Collector, Kanker and entry of the name of the Collector as Manager of the Trust be declared illegal, void and inoperative.

(iv) The constitution and registration of the Public Trust by the Registrar, Public Trusts, Kanker in Revenue Case No. 1/B-113/ 93-94 dated 16-8-1994 be declared illegal and ineffective.

(v) The Defendants be restrained from interfering with the Plaintiffs possession in the suit land and temple.

3. The suit was filed on 11-4-1992 on the pleadings inter alia that the idol of Sinhwahini, being the Plaintiff No. 1, is a juristic person having been installed in the temple of Sinhwahini situated at Rajapara, Kanker. The said Deity was consecrated and installed by the erstwhile Ruler of Kanker State Shri Komaldeo as his Kul-Devi (family Deity) by constructing the temple at Rajapara. After his death, the legal heirs of the erstwhile Ruler continued to worship the Deity on the occasions of Ram-Navami, Dashehara, Deepawali and other special occasions and on rest of the days the temple used to be closed and the general public were not allowed to enter the temple. Thus, it was a private temple of the erstwhile Ruler, which was thrown open for the public in 1985 by the present head of the royal family, namely, Maharajadhiraj Shri Uday Pratap Deo. The Deity possesses 30.00 acres of land at Village Banspattar and an area of 211 square meters on Sheet No. 13, Plot No. 15, at Rajapara, Kanker on which the temple has been constructed. According to the Plaintiffs, the property was looked after and managed by its Sarvarakar Sunder Singh, Padum Singh and Pannalal, who are the ancestors of Plaintiff No. 2 Laxminarayan. Pannalal died in 1985 and thereafter Plaintiff No. 2 was appointed as Sarvarakar by the followers and worshippers of Plaintiff No. 1, Deity and since then Plaintiff No. 2 is performing the job of Sarvarakar. The Tahsildar, Kanker illegally entered the name of Collector, Bastar as Manager of the agricultural lands in the year 1974-75 without informing Plaintiff No. 1, whereas the Collector, Bastar has never taken any interest in the affairs of the temple. The Collector, Bastar has never been appointed as Manager by Plaintiff No. 1. Plaintiff No. 2 moved an application before the Additional Collector, Kanker for entering his name as Sarvarakar, which was rejected on 10-7-1990 and an order was passed to declare the temple as Public Trust. The said order or registration of Public Trust is illegal and void.

4. It was further stated in the plaint that after registration of the Public Trust, the Defendants are interfering in the affairs of the temple, therefore, the present suit has been preferred.

5. The Defendants filed their written statement and stated that Plaintiff No. 2 is not the Sarvarakar of the temple and the present suit against the Manager of the Trust and challenging the registration of the Trust is not maintainable. It was stated that the temple was established