The existence of a public trust can be established by proof of the settlor's intention, which can be inferred from the user of the property and surrounding circumstances.

1. This judgement will dispose of Regular First Appeals Nos. 741 and 964 of 1976 which arise out of the same judgement of the Subordinate Judge, 1st Class, Hoshiarpur. Swami Hira Nand Puri of village Nangal Bihalan, District Hoshiarpur it is averred, was an eminent scholar and spiritual man. He was highly respected and even worshipped by countless followers throughout the country. Under his spiritual influence various devotees made different donations in his favour for the welfare of his followers. The assets which he left at the time of his death are given in Annexure - A attached herewith.

2. It is further averred that the Swamiji created a Trust styled as Shri Hira Nand Puri Sat Sangh (Mission) and dedicated his personal and the above property to it. He utilised all his income for purely religious and charitable purposes. He died on 7th Jan 1964 at Chandigarh. Defendants 1 to 5 were his chelas. Defendants 6 and 7 were Shri Hira Puri Mission and Shri Hira Puri Sat Sangh, whose Presidents were also the chelas of Swamiji. Defendants 1 and 2 started quarrelling after his death and various civil and criminal proceedings started between them regarding the property. They set up personal claims to it and thus frustrated the purpose of the trust created by Swamiji. Consequently the plaintiffs instituted a suit for settling a scheme for proper administration of Shri Hira Nand Puri Sat Sangh (Mission), a trust created by Swamiji and for appointment of trustees or the Manager and for directing accounts and proper enquiries regarding all its assets.

3. The suit was contested by Bodha Nand defendant 1 alone. He controverted the allegations of the plaintiffs and inter alia pleaded that Swami Hira Nand Puri belonged to Abhdhoot Sanyasi sect according to which no grasthi could be his chela. The plaintiffs were grasthis and were, therefore, not entitled to file the suit. The defendant was the owner to the extent of one-half share of the land situated in village Barkatpur but the plaintiffs mala fide had instituted a suit for that land also. He pleaded that the other properties were self acquired properties of the deceased and he was his spiritual heir. No trust was ever created by the deceased of his personal properties and that the plaint does not disclose any cause of action. He also challenged the locus standi of the plaintiffs to institute the suit. Some other pleas were also taken but they are not relevant for the decision of the appeals.

4. On the pleadings of the parties nine issues were framed However, arguments have been raised in the appeal on five issues which are as follows :

4. Whether the suit property is trust property as alleged in the plaint ?

5. Whether the defendant is entitled to succeed to the suit property as chela of Swami Hira Nand Puri ?

6. If issue 4 is proved, whether Swami Hira Nand did not create any trust with respect to the property at Barkatpur ?

7. Whether the plaintiffs have any locus standi to file the suit and whether they can challenge the right of defendant 1 in the property ?

8. What is the proper scheme for the "Tadministration of the property ?"

5. The learned trial Court held that the existence of public trust had been established, that some of the properties were trust properties while some were the individual properties of the deceased and that the land measuring 70 bighas 10 biswas situated in village Barkatpur belonged to defendant 1. (Full details have been given in Annexure-"A"). It further held that the plaintiffs had locus standi to institute the suit. Consequently it decreed the suit of the plaintiffs regarding trust properties and framed a scheme but partially. It further observed that the full and complete scheme would be prepared at the time of passing the final decree. The plaintiffs and defendant 1 have filed the present appeals. The appeal of the former is R.F. A. No. 964 of 1976 and that of defendant 1 is R.F. A. No. 741 of 1976. First I shall deal with the appeal filed by def