1. The present appeal filed under Section 96 of CPC is directed against the order dated 23/3/2011 passed by the Additional District Judge (Fast Track) No.8, Jaipur City, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as 'the Trial Court) in Civil Suit No.15 of 2009, whereby the Trial Court has allowed the application of the respondents-defendants filed under Order VII, Rule 11 of CPC seeking rejection of plaint. The said order being decree within the meaning of Section 2(2) of CPC, the appellant-plaintiff has filed the present appeal.

2. The appellant-plaintiff had filed the suit, seeking declaration and mandatory injunction before the Trial Court alleging inter alia that the defendant No.1 is a public trust registered under the provisions of the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act'), and the said trust possesses various immovable properties. It was further alleged that the said trust was constituted by the common ancestors of the plaintiff and the defendant Nos.2 to 10, late Shri Ballabh Das, Shri Keshav Das, Shri Hari Das, Shri Ranchordas, Shri Kunjbihari Lal and Shri Bhagwanji. According to the plaintiff, on the death of the founder member of the trust any of his family members has to be nominated, who will remain as trustee only for three years, and thereafter the other member of the family will be appointed as the trustee, and accordingly the plaintiff was entitled for the right of hereditary trustee in view of the Constitution of the trust. It was also alleged that the defendants were misusing and mismanaging the properties of the trust and were not keeping proper accounts. The plaintiff therefore had made an application to the respondent No.14-Assistant Commissioner, Devasthan Department on 7/11/2007, and one application to the defendant No.15-the Commissioner, Devesthan Department on 19/9/2007, raising his grievances about not giving trust-ship to the plaintiff, and about the defendants misusing the properties of the trust, however the said defendants had not taken any action nor had made any application to the concerned Court as required under Section 40 of the said Act. The plaintiff therefore had filed the suit interalia for declaration to the effect that he was entitled to the office of hereditary trustee, and for mandatory injunction directing the defendant Nos.13 to 15 to remove the defendant Shri Balkishan and his other family members as the trustees and to appoint new trustees. He also sought permanent injunction, restraining the defendants from misusing the properties of the trust and to manage the properties in accordance with the object of the trust deed. The appellant-plaintiff had also sought necessary direction for the better administration of the trust and its properties.

3. The respondents-defendants having resisted the suit by filing the written statement, had also filed an application under Order VII, Rule 11 (d) of the CPC, seeking rejection of plaint on the ground that the suit was barred under the provisions of Section 73 of the said Act. The Trial Court vide the impugned order dated 23/3/2011 has allowed the said application, against which the present appeal has been filed.

4. It is sought to be submitted by the learned counsel Mr. Saransh Saini for the appellant that the reliefs of declaration and injunction prayed for in the suit in respect of the trust property, could not be granted by any authority under the said Act, and therefore the suit cannot be said to be barred under Section 73 of the said Act. Relying upon the decision of the Division Bench in case of Laxmi Chand Nath & Ors. vs. The Commissioner of Rajasthan through Secretary, Devesthan Department & Ors, 2007(1) WLC 103, he submitted that the question, which cannot be decided by the authorities under the Act, can be decided by the Civil Court, and that the Act would not be applicable to the private trust. Mr. Saini has also placed reliance on the decision of this Court in case of Dinesh Chandra Swami vs. S