Parth Prateem Sahu, J.

As the above two appeals arise out of same judgment, they are being heard and decided together by this common order.

2. Challenge in the above two appeals is to judgment dated 10.5.2005 and decree dated 13.6.2005 passed by learned 7th Additional District Judge (FTC) Durg in Civil Suit No.16A/02 whereby learned Additional District Judge has dismissed suit of plaintiffs/appellants in FA No.175/2005 and partly allowed counter claim of defendants No.3 to 5/appellants in FA No.119/2013.

3. Facts relevant for disposal of present appeals are that one Ramlal son of Chamru Sao was survived by Smt. Bhuri Bai Sao (widow), Bhola Sao (son), Lalchand Sao (son), Kamlabai Gupta (daughter) & Taramati Gupta (daughter). Lalchand Sao filed a suit under Section 8 of the MP Public Trust Act, 1971 (for short 'the Act of 1951) for following reliefs:-

^^¼1½ ;g fd oknh ds i{k esa bl ckr dh ?kks"k.kk dh tkos dh v;ks/;koklh /keZ'kkyk VªLV dk tks iath;u yksd U;kl ds :i esa fd;k x;k gS og fu;eksa ds foijhr gS ,oa okn laifRr U;kl laifRr ugha gS cfYd okn laifRr la;qDr fgUnw ifjokj dh laifRr gS ftl ij oknh dk iw.kZ Hkwfe Lokeh gd o vf/kiR; gSA

¼2½ ;g fd bl ckr ?kks"k.kk fd;k tkos fd Áfroknh Øekad 2 ¼nks½ }kjk laifRr dks tks yksd U;kl dh laifRr ?kksf"kr dh xbZ gS og vkns'k voS/k o 'kwU; gS rFkk oknh ij ca/kudkjh ugha gS] vr,o jktLo Ádj.k Øekad 2c@113 lu~ 1996&97 ¼mUuhl lkS N;kUcs@lUrkUcs½ Hkksyk lko fo:} ykypan lko esa ikfjr vkns'k fnukad 21-1-1997 ¼,Ddhl tuojh mUuhl lkS lUrkUcs½ }kjk iath;d yksd U;kl nqxZ dks fujLr fd;k tkosA

¼3½ ;g fd bl ckr dh Hkh ?kks"k.kk dh tkos fd fnukad 15-5-1954 ¼iaæg ebZ mUuhl lkS pkSou½ dks fd;k x;k cDlhl i= laifRr varj.k vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 122 ¼,d lkS ckbZl½ ds varxZr fof/kor cDlhl ugha gksus ds dkj.k ,oa jkeyky dks l;aqDr fgUnw ifjokj dh laifRr dkd cDlhl djus dk vf/kdkj ugha gksus ds dkj.k ÁHkkoghu nLrkost gS ftlls oknh dk fgr ÁHkkfor ugha gks ldrk ,oa oknh dks okn laifRr dj cgSfl;r Hkwfe Lokeh mi;ksx ,oa miHkksx djus dk vf/kdkj gSA

¼4½ ;g fd oknh ds i{k esa bl ckr dh LFkkbZ fu"ks/kkKk tkjh fd;k tkos dh Áfroknhx.kksa dks oknh ds 'kkafriw.kZ dCts esa n[ky nsus dk dksbZ vf/kdkj ugha gS tc rd laifRr dk vafre foHkktu gksdj LoRo dk vafre fu.kZ; u gks vr,o Áfroknhx.kksa dks LFkkbZ ,oa vLFkkbZ O;kns'k }kjk fu"ksf/kr fd;k tkos fd Lo;a o fdlh vU; ds ek/;e ls oknh dks okn laifRr ls vk; ÁkIr djus ,oa mlds mi;ksx ,oa miHkksx esa fdlh Ádkj dk fo?u ck/kk mRiUu u djsaA

¼5½ ;g fd bl ckr dh ?kks"k.kk dh tkos dh pe: lko us vFkok jkeyky lko us vius thoudky esa dHkh Hkh bPNk O;Dr ugha dh Fkh fd v;ks/;koknh Hkou dks yksd U;kl esa ifjofrZr dj mls yksd U;kl gsrq lefiZr dj nsaxs ;k dj fn;k FkkA vr,o lk{; ,oa rF; ds vHkko esa yksd U;kl iath;u ds laca/k esa dh xbZ dk;Zokgh voS/k ,oa 'kwU; gSA bl fouk; ij Hkh okn laifRr dks yksd U;kl laifRr ds :i esa eqDr fd;k tkos ,oa Áfroknh Øekad 3 ¼rhu½ dk vLrhRo lekIr ?kksf"kr fd;k tkos ,oa Áfroknh Øekad 2 ¼nks½ dks funsZf'kr fd;k tkos dh os yksd U;kl iath ls v;ks/;koklh /keZ'kkyk VªLV d uke foyksfir djsaA rFkk okn ds vafre fujkdj.k rd fookfnr vkns'k ds ÁHkko dks fuyafcr fd;k tkosA

¼6½ ;g fd U;k;ky; O;; ds vykok vU; fnxj lgk;rk vnkyr tks equkflc le>s fnyk;h tkosA**

4. In the pleadings along with other facts, it was specifically pleaded that the property which has been declared as public trust property vide order dated 21.1.1997 passed in Revenue Case No.2B/113/1996-97 was not a public trust property and further direction of registration of public trust i.e. Ayodhyawasi Dharamshala Nyas. In the plaint it was also specifically pleaded that competent authority under the Act of 1951 has firstly not initiated proceeding of enquiry as provided under Section 5 of the Act of 1951 and thereafter contrary to provisions of the Act of 1951 directed for registration of public trust vide order dated 21.1.1997. It has also been pleaded that gift deed dated 15.5.1954 was not a validly executed document and the same is in contravention of the provisions of Section 122 of the Transfer of Property Act. Defendant No.