The plaintiff/appellant filed a suit in which a plea was taken that the institution by the name of Ramjanki Porsa, in the district of Morena was not required to be registered under the M.P. Public Trusts Act, 1951. According to the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, this institution is governed by Qawayad Muafidaran Jujbe Arazi Wa Nakdi, Samvat 1991 (Riyasat Gwalior). It is submitted that the ownership of the institution vested in the State Government and the plaintiff was merely a pujari looking after the affairs of the institution in question.

The trial Court in para 20 of the judgment recorded a categoric finding that the plaintiff was merely a pujari and the institution in question vested in the State. This finding has been affirmed by the first appellate Court. See paras 9 and 10 of the judgment of the first appellate Court.

This precise question has been dealt with in second appeal 110 of 1992 decided today. In para 2 and 3 it was observed as under :

"A bare reading of the aforementioned provision indicates that a public trust under the control of the State or of any local authority is exempt from the provisions of 1951 Act.

In the present case, the findings recorded by the Courts below are that the institution in question vests in the State Government and it was being looked after by a pujari. If this be the position then, the institution in question was exempt and it could not be registered under the aforementioned Act. In somewhat similar circumstances in State Bank of Indore v. Property Tax Officer [1981 (ii) MPWN Note 125], it was observed that a public trust managed by Government is exempt under section 36 and it is not necessary to get it registered before filing of civil suit. Though, the above case, as indicated above, dealt with a different proposition yet on a bare reading of section 36 (1) (a) (c) the conclusion is inevitable that an institution which vests in the State and is looked after by a pujari who is appointed by the Government, then, there is no question to get the same registered."

This appeal is accordingly allowed. The registration of the institution under the aforementioned Act would be of no consequence. It is, however, made clear that the Collector of the District would be within its rights to see that the institution is properly administered. Copy of this judgment be sent to the Collector, Morena and also to the Commissioner of Aukaf Department at Gwalior.