Gobil, J. -- 1. This second appeal filed by the appellants-plaintiffs was admitted on 27.4.1998 on the following substantial question of law :

"(a) Whether the first appellate Court has gone wrong in interpreting the material document Ex. P-3 and whether wrong interpretation has resulted in the decree liable to be dislodged?

(b) Whether the first appellate Court has committed an error of law in dislodging and demolishing the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court contrary to the principles of law laid down in AIR 1974 SC 405 (Baburao Bagaji Karemore and others v. Govind and others)?"

2. The brief facts of the case are that plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction against the respondent-State, stating therein that suit land bearing survey No.1 admeasuring 6.584 hectare, 2 admeasuring 0.086 hectare, 3 admeasuring 1.497 hectare and 2 admeasuring 6.929 hectare, total area 15.982 hectare, situated in village Barda, Tahsil Khategaon, on which temple of Shri Krishna is situated, was given to his father Kaluram and Gotulal by the then Zamindar of Chuhumat as a gift, which was free from land revenue, on the condition that he will perform Pooja-Archana of the temple. Since then plaintiffs are in possession and enjoying the land as Bhumi Swami. They have acquired the rights in the property under the provisions of section 158 of M.P. Land Revenue Code and they have also become Bhumi Swami on the basis of their adverse possession, but without giving any notice Tahsildar of Khategaon has recorded the entry in the Khasra and land record and has mentioned the name of Collector as manager and the land is being auctioned to give it on Patta.

3. In the suit, written statement was filed by the respondent-State and it was stated that the land was not given as a gift but it is recorded in the name of deity and status of the plaintiffs is as of Pujari. The learned tiral Court after considering the plaintiff's evidence held that the aforesaid land was given by the then Zarnindar to the forefather of the plaintiffs, they are in possession and paying the land revenue. Since no notice was given to them, therefore, entering the name of Collector in the land record without any notice is illegal and decreed the suit vide judgment dated 12.1.1993 in favour of plaintiffs. Against which State has filed first appeal. The learned first appellate Court vide judgment dated 4.2.1997 set aside the judgment of the trial Court and held that in the documents Ex. P-1 and P-2, land is recorded in the name of deity Shri Ram Mandir through Pujari Gaya Prasad and Ex. P-3 is a copy of Danpatra in which it has been mentioned that he has given the land for the temple and income of the land shall be used for performing Pooja-Archana and for celebrating religious festivals and Pujaris Kalurarn and Gotulal will manage the land. They will cultivate, keep it in their possession and also consume the income. Considering the provisions of section 158 of M.P. Land Revenue Code, lower appellate Court found that the land was gifted to the temple and Pujaris were appointed as trustees and right was also given that they will be entitled to consume the income of the temple and set aside the judgment and decree granted by the trial Court and also upheld the action of the Tahsildar in recording the name of the Collector as manager. Against which this second appeal has been filed by the appellants-plaintiffs which was admitted on the aforesaid substantial question of law.

4. I have heard Shri B.I. Mehta, learned counsel, appearing for the appellants and Shri Lokesh Bhatnagar, learned Government Advocate, appearing for respondent-State.

5. Shri Mehta, criticized the judgment passed by lower appellate Court and submitted that the lower appellate Court has totally overlooked the document Ex. P-3 which is copy of the 'Will' and has also overlooked this fact that the revenue officers before recording the name of Collector as manager of the templ