Hon’ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.—This is plaintiff’s appeal under Section 100 C.P.C. As per the prevalent practice of this Court, this appeal was presented before Registrar and admitted by him on 17.8.1988 with a direction of listing appeal before Court for hearing under Order 41 Rule 11 C.P.C. on 25.8.1988. Thereafter, notice was issued to respondents on 4.2.1998. It however does not appear from record that this Court after hearing appeal under Order 41 Rule 11 C.P.C. at any point of time found that there has arisen any substantial question of law, which may give rise to an occasion to hear appeal under Order 41 Rule 13 C.P.C. It has remained pending in the process for almost one and half decade and more, but it does not appear from record that this Court made any observation at any point of time that it does/or not give rise to any substantial question of law and the same has/have not been formulated till date.

2. Be that as it may, I heard Sri P.K. Jain, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Rajesh Gupta, Advocate, for appellant and Sri Vivek Chaudhary and Sri Rahul Mishra, Advocates, for respondents on 29.4.2014 and thereafter following four substantial questions of law, which in my view have arisen in this matter and required to be adjudicated by this Court, were formulated:

(i) Whether Bhagirathi Devi, by will dated 5.9.1932, created a private Trust or a public Trust or Public Charitable Trust?

(ii) Whether a Trustee can delegate any of his duties without permission of Court in view of Section 46 and 47 of Indian Trusts Act, 1882 (hereinafter referred to as “Act, 1882”)?

(iii) Whether Sri Har Swaroop, who accepted and entered upon the Trust in view of desire expressed by author of will dated 5.9.1932 had authority to transfer his duties and liabilities without permission of the Court?

(iv) Whether Sri Har Swaroop had any authority to execute himself will dated 7.12.1937?

3. As requested by learned counsels for parties, this matter was directed to be placed on 5.5.2014, on board, for hearing under Order 41 Rule 13 C.P.C., on which date it was again directed to be placed on 6.5.2014.

4. Learned counsels for parties besides advancing their own submissions, have also filed short notes/written brief in support of their submissions.

5. I have heard them at length and also perused written submissions submitted by them.

6. The dispute relates to a Trust, namely, “Bhagirathi Vedik Kanya Pathshala” which was created as a Private Charitable Trust by Smt. Bhagirathi Devi vide a registered deed dated 5.9.1932. As per the terms of trust-deed, after demolition of entire building situated at 265/266, Mohalla Maida, Lalkurti Bazar, Meerut Cantt., a Girls School building was to be constructed. Rs. 2000/- towards the expenses of such construction were kept aside by the founder of Trust. Besides, the income of Bungalow No. 241, Kali Paltan was kept apart and to be utilized for the said School, i.e., Kanya Pathshala. The founder of Trust appointed her youngest son, Lala Har Swaroop, father of Bhupendra Kumar (the plaintiff-appellant) as sole Trustee. Lala Har Swaroop got the school building constructed and School started running under the name and title “Bhagirathi Kanya Pathshala”.

7. Upto 1937, Lala Har Swaroop managed the affairs of Trust property. On 7.12.1937, he executed a document transferring management of Kanya Pathshala and the Trust to President, Arya Samaj, Lal Kurti Bazar, Meerut Cantt. He also amalgamated Kanya Pathshala with another Pathshala run by Arya Samaj, Lal Kurti Bazar, Meerut Cantt. On 20.10.1953, Lala Har Swaroop executed another deed, completely detaching himself from the management of Pathshala and Trust and left it in the hands of defendants.

8. The plaintiff alleged that in 1959 Lala Har Swaroop realized his mistake and nominated him (plaintiff) as sole Trustee. Consequently, Original Suit No. 396 of 1973 was instituted by Sri Bhupendra Kumar, son of Lala Har Swaroop seeking a declaration that plaintiff, bei