The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for a person interested in a Public Trust to challenge the finding of the Registrar and the necessity of a notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure for filing a suit under Section 8 of the Act, 1951. The judgment also emphasizes the importance of considering the livelihood of the Priest and his family members in the management of the Trust Property.

ORDER :

1. This revision has been preferred under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure being aggrieved with the order dated 18.8.2023 passed by the Twelfth Additional Judge to First Civil Judge Class-II, Raipur (CG) in Civil Suit No.16-A/2023, whereby, the application preferred by the petitioner/defendant under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short “the CPC”) has been dismissed.

2. Brief facts of the case are that in the premises of Pandit Ravi Shankar Shukla University, a temple is situated. The University, for better management of the temple, took a decision for constitution of the Trust Committee and thus, Regulation No.175 was framed by the University in the name of ‘Maa Banjari Devi Temple Trust’. After due proceeding, the Registrar (Public Trusts)-cum-SDO (Revenue), Raipur vide order dated 22.12.2020 (Annexure P/2) passed in Case No.06/B-113(1) Year 2019-20 under Section 6 of the C.G. Public Trusts Act, 1951 (in short “the Act, 1951”) gave a direction under Section 7 of the said Act to make the entry of the said Trust in the register in accordance with the finding recorded under Section 6 of the Act, 1951 and further, a Registration Certificate was also issued on 22.12.2020 in the name of ‘Maa Banjari Devi Temple Trust’ at Sl. No.419. Thereafter, the respondent/plaintiff filed an appeal before the District Judge, Raipur vide MJC Trust Case No.18/2021. The learned District Judge, Raipur while dismissing the appeal vide judgment dated 24.9.2022 (Annexure P/5), observed that since no order has been passed by the Registrar under Section 23 of the Act, 1951, the appeal filed under Section 24 of the Act is misconceived. It was further observed that the person having interest in a Public Trust, if aggrieved by the finding of the Registrar under Section 6 of the Act, 1951, may institute a suit before the Civil Court within 6 months from the date of publication of the notice under sub-section (1) of Section 7, to set-aside or modify such finding. Against the said order, the respondent/plaintiff filed WPC No.4755/2022 before this Court and the same was withdrawn on 5.12.2022 and a liberty was reserved in favour of the respondent/plaintiff to avail other suitable remedies available under the law. Thereafter, the respondent/plaintiff filed the subject Civil Suit on 10.1.2023 - Annexure P/6 under Section 8 of the Act, 1951 for declaring himself as the trustee of Maa Banjari Devi Temple Trust and further seeking the declaration on the ground that the order dated 22.12.2020 (Annexure P/2) passed by the Registrar Public Trust is not binding on him. The plaintiff further sought permanent injunction against the defendant by allowing the plaintiff to render his services as a Priest in the said temple. In the said suit, the applicant/defendant filed an application under Order 7 Rule11 of the CPC, which was dismissed by the impugned order. Hence, this Revision.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant/defendant would submit that during the registration proceedings under the Act, 1951, three objections were filed including that of the brother of the respondent/plaintiff namely Ishwar Prasad Tiwari, S/o late Kirat Ram Tiwari. After taking into consideration all these aspects, the Registrar vide order dated 22.12.2020, overruled the objections and passed the order to the effect that the Trust is a Public Trust and the names and addresses of the Trustees and its Manager were mentioned in the order for registration of the Trust. The respondent/plaintiff was not an employee of Pandit Ravi Shankar Shukla University and the said temple is situated in the premises of the said University. He would further submit that to avoid any nuisance and for better management of the temple, the University had taken a conscious decision to form a Public Trust. He would also submit that the respondent/plaintiff only to satisfy his personal interest and in adverse to the interest of the Trust, challenged the finding of the Registrar by filing the s