K.L. PANDEY, J.

1. This appeal under section 27 (3) of the Madhya Pradesh Public Trusts Act, 1951 (hereinafter called the Act) is directed against an order dated 7 August 1967 whereby, on an application made by the Registrar of Public Trusts under section 26 (2) of the Act, the First Additional District Judge, Bhopal, held inter alia:-

(i) That the temple of Shri Jagannathji at Champa was affiliated to the Champa Math belonging to the Nihanga Sadhoos of Ramanandi Sect;

(ii) That the property of the temple was an accretion to the property of the Math;

(iii) That therefore, the property of the trust in favour of the temple would be governed by the customs and practices applying to the Math;

(iv) That Kumar Rudra Sharan Singh, being the successor of the founder, would be recorded as the trustee;

(v) That succession to the office of the trustee would be governed by the law of inheritance as applying to the founder;

(vi) That succession to the office of the Mahant would be governed by the customs and practices of the Nihanga Sadhoos of Ramanandi Sect;

(vii) That in accordance with those customs and practices, the Mahant of the Math would be the working trustee;

(viii) That the name of Mahant Narayandas (respondent 2) would be substituted for that of Salharu Prasad (respondent 1) as the working trustee in the Register of Trusts; and

(ix) That Mahant Narayandas shall replace the properties of the trust which he had sold away.

2. The material facts, which are no longer in contest, may be shortly stated. In the Samvat year 1945, Premsingh, the then Zamindar of Champa, had created a trust, now called Temple Shri Jagannathji Public Trust. On 30 October 1953, Mahant Ramcharandas, who called himself Pujari and Sarbarakar (manager) of the temple, applied for registration of the Public Trust under the provisions 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 under section 5 of the Act and it was reported that the required particulars a given in the application were correct. It was, however, stated in the report that the office of the trustee (and manager) devolved by inheritance from the first founder. This report was accepted and the trust was then duly registered. In the register prescribed by the Act, the relevant entry relating to succession to the office of the trustee was shown to be "by inheritance from the founder." The mode of succession to the office of the Pujari or Sarbarakar (so called manager) was not shown in the register.

3. It transpired that Mahant Ramcharandas died on 28 July 1959. Thereupon, in September 1959, the trustee Rani Upman Kumari applied under section 9 of the Act for correction of the entry in the register stating that she had appointed Salharu Prasad to work in place of Mahant Ramcharandas. That application was contested by Mahant Narayandas. By an order dated 23 February 1961, the Registrar upheld the right of the trustee to appoint a Sarbarakar for the temple, directed the relevant entry in the register to be corrected accordingly and ordered the property belonging to the trust to be placed in possession of Salharu Prasad. Following this, various steps were taken with the assistance of the police to place the property in his possession. Thereupon, Mahant Narayandas filed Civil Suit No. I-A of 1961 in the Court of the Third Additional District Judge, Bilaspur, claiming a declaration that he was entitled to hold the office of the Mahant of the trust and also to remain in that capacity, in possession of the temple property. However, he withdrew that suit on 4 September 1961 and filed Miscellaneous Petition No. 279 of 1961 calling in question the order dated 23 February 1961 in its entirety. At the bearing, the attack was confined to the direction relating to delivery of possession of the temple property to Salharu Prasad. This Court, b