A person who without title chooses to take upon himself the character of a trustee becomes a trustee de son tort and is liable to account for what he has done or what he has received while so acting in the same way as if he were a de jure trustee.

( 1 ) THIS is an appeal under Section 27 (3) of the M. P. Public Trusts Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) read with Section 96 of the Civil P. C. against the order passed by the Additional District Judge under Section 27 of the Act holding that the appellant has no claim to the office of Mahant of Shri jagannathji Public Trust, Champa, and he be divested of the scheduled properties of the said trust in his possession and he is further restrained from interfering with the affairs of the trust.

( 2 ) THE facts which are not in dispute are that sometime in the year 1889 (Samvat 1945) Premsingh, the then Zamindar of Champa, had created a trust on 3 12-1954 now called Temple Shri Jagannathji Public Trust. In the premises of the said trust there is also an idol of Shri Ramchandraji and other idols. On 3010-1953 Mahant Ramcharandas, who called himself Pujari and Sarbarakar (Manager) of the temple, applied for registration of the public trust under section 4 of the Act In his application, he disclosed that the office of the trustee (which he called working trustee) devolved by inheritance from the founder and the manager was appointed by the trustee. In due course, an enquiry was made and ultimately the trust was registered and relevant entries were made in register prescribed by the Act showing that the office of the trustee was to go by inheritance from the founder. The said Mahant Ramcharandas died on 28-71959. Thereupon, in September 1959 the trustee Rani Upman Kumari Devi appointed respondent No. 3 Salharoo Prasad as Pujari and Sarbara-kar of the trust. She also made an application under Section 9 for correction of the entry in the register by substituting the name of Salharoo Prasad in placa of Mahant ramcharandas. The application was contested by the appellant. By order dated 23-2-1961 the Registrar upheld the right of the trustee to appoint Pujari and sarbarakar for the trust, directed the relevant entry be corrected and ordered that the property belonging to the trust be placed in possession of Salharoo prasad. Aggrieved by this order, the appellant filed Civil Suit No. 1-A of 1961 in the Court of IIIrd Addition District Judge, Bilaspur. However, he withdrew the suit on 4-9-1961. The appellant then filed Misc. Petition No, 279/61 calling in question the order of the Registrar dated 23-2-1961. By order dated 8-1-1962 the petition was partly allowed on the short ground that the provisions of the act did not empower the Registrar to interfere with possession of trust property by a person like Mahant Narayandas who himself claimed to be entitled to manage it. On 18-1-1962 the Registrar made an application under Section 26 (2) of the Act praying that the appellant be removed from his office as a trustee de son tort which office he has usurped and he be ejected from the pro-perties of the public trust and Rani Upman Kumari Devi be placed in possession. The application was opposed by the appellant who also filed an application under section 26 of the Act with a request that the matters raised therein be also forwarded to the Civil Court for order. It appears that thereafter proceedings under Section 145 of the Cr. P. C. were started between the parties and ultimately Rani Upman Kumari Devi was placed in possession of the trust property and the order was maintained in revision by this Court. The Additional district Judge by his order dated 7-8-1967 rejected the application of the registrar while allowing the application of the appellant holding that there existed another public trust, that is a Math at Champa, and the temple of jagan-nathji with the property dedicated to it was the part of this Math. The appellant was entitled to succeed Ramcharandas as Mahant of the Math, being chela of Ramcharandas and further in view of the will made by Ramcharandas. As such, the appellant was entitled to continue in possession of the trust property. In appeal, this Court by its order dated 8-10-1968 reversed most of the