ORDER Dixit, C.J. This order will also govern Civil Revision No. 73 of 1962. The common question raised in these two petitions is whether on an objection being raised by the defendant that the suit filed by the plaintiff being on behalf of a public trust, which has not been registered under the Madhya Pradesh Public Trusts Act, 1951, cannot be heard and decided by a Court u/s 32 of the Act, the civil Court has jurisdiction to decide the question whether the plaintiff is a public trust within the meaning of the Act. The material provisions of the Act are sections 2(4), 4 to 8 and 32. Section 2(4) defines 'public trust'. u/s 4 the registration of a public trust is compulsory and the working trustee of a trust is required to apply to the Registrar having jurisdiction for the registration of the trust. The application has to be in the prescribed form and in conformity with sub-section (3) of section 4. Section 5 says that on receipt of an application u/s 4 or upon an application made by any person having interest in a public trust or on his own motion the Registrar shall make an enquiry in the prescribed manner for the purpose of ascertaining whether the trust is a public trust and determining other matters mentioned in that section. Section 6 lays down that the Registrar shall record his findings with reasons therefore as to the matters mentioned in section 5. The findings of the Registrar are then entered in the register of public trusts. u/s 7(2), the entries made in the register are final and conclusive subject to any change recorded under any provision of the Act. Section 8 gives to any working trustee or a person having interest in a public trust or any property found to be trust property to institute a suit in a civil Court for setting aside, or for a modification of, any finding of the Registrar u/s 6 if he is aggrieved by that finding. Sub-section (3) of section 8 provides that on the final decision of such a suit the Registrar shall, if necessary, correct the entries made in the register in accordance with the said decision. Sub-section (3) of section 8 provides that on the final decision of such a suit the Registrar shall, if necessary, correct the entries made in the register in accordance with the said decision. Section 32, on which the defendants-opponents, based their objection, runs as follows :- (1) No suit to enforce a right on behalf of a public trust which has not been registered under this Act shall be heard or decided in any Court. (2) The provisions of sub-section (1) shall apply to a claim or set off or other proceeding to enforce a right on behalf of such public trust. The provisions referred to above are plain enough to show that the question whether any trust is a public trust within the definition of the term given in the Act and whether its registration is necessary can be determined only by the Registrar in the manner prescribed in the Act. The Registrar's decision on the question is final and conclusive subject to the decision in any suit that may be filed u/s 8 by any working trustee or a person having interest in a public trust or any property found to be trust property and aggrieved by any finding of the Registrar u/s 6. When such a suit is filed, the final decision in it is binding on everybody. Now, section 32, when it prescribes that no suit to enforce a right on behalf of a public trust which has not been registered under the Act shall be heard or decided in any Court, necessarily implies that when an objection resting on that provision is raised, the Court shall first decide whether the suit is on behalf of a public trust of which registration is necessary under the Act. It is obvious that unless the Court first decides whether the suit is one on behalf of a public trust of which registration is necessary, it cannot be in a position to reach the conclusion whether the suit should be proceeded with or stayed u/s 32. The rending of the Court as to whether or not the plaintiff swing is a public trust of which registration is necessary under the Act is a provisional finding only for the purpose of section 32. The rending of the Court as to whether or not the plaintiff swing is a public trust of which registration is necessary under the Act is a provisional finding only for the purpose of section 32. In giving that finding, the Court in no manner decides the question which the Registrar alone can decide under sections 5 and 6 or which the civil Court has the power to decide u/s 8. The decision of a Court u/s 32, when it is disputed that the suit is on behalf of a public trust which has not been registered under the Act, is without prejudice to the final decision which the Registrar may be called upon to make under sections 5 and 6 or which the Court pronounces u/s 8. If the Court upholds the defendant's1 objection u/s 32, the hearing of the suit has to be stayed until the trust is recognised and registered as a public trust in accordance with the provisions contained in Chapter-II of the Act. If, on the other hand, the objection is overruled, the trial of the suit must proceed and the person aggrieved by the decision of the Court can move the Registrar for inquiry and decision under sections 5 and 6 of the Act. The Court trying the suit, in which an objection u/s 32 is taken, has to act ultimately according to the decision of the Registrar in proceedings under Chapter-II. In the cases before us, an objection u/s 32 was raised by the defendants-opponents. The trial Court found that prima facie the two suits filed by the petitioner were on behalf of a public trust which had not been registered under the Act, and accordingly made an order staying the hearing of the suits. The petitioner was directed to produce within 45 days the certificate of registration under the Act. The petitioner's objection that the lower Court had no jurisdiction to hold on the defendants' objection that the suits were on behalf of an unregistered public trust cannot, in view of what has been stated earlier, be accepted. Shri Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner, referred us to the decision of Bhutt J. (as he then was) in Smt. Laltabai Gopalrao Naik Vs. Krishnarao Naik and Others, (C. R. No. 422/56, D/- 8-8-1958). Shri Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner, referred us to the decision of Bhutt J. (as he then was) in Smt. Laltabai Gopalrao Naik Vs. Krishnarao Naik and Others, (C. R. No. 422/56, D/- 8-8-1958). In that case, the learned Judge set aside an order of the trial Court staying a suit u/s 32(1) on a finding that the suit was on behalf of a public trust which had not been registered. The learned Judge observed that the question whether the trust was a public trust was for the Registrar to decide u/s 5 and the defendant's proper remedy was to move the Registrar if he had an interest in the trust. He made an order directing the trial Court to proceed with the suit. With all due deference to the learned Judge, we do not find ourselves in agreement with the view taken by him in Kaliji Deity's ease 1959 MPLJ Note No. I (C.R. No. 422/56, D/- 8 8-1958). The effect of his decision is virtually to rule out any objection u/s 32 and to render that section altogether ineffective. As we have stated earlier, sections 5 to 8 do not preclude the Court trying a suit from entertaining an objection u/s 32 and giving a provisional finding on the question whether or not the plaintiff suing is a public trust not registered under the Act. The complaint that the lower Court should not have decided the question whether prima facie the suits were on behalf of a public trust which had not been registered on a bare perusal of the plaints and without giving to the petitioner any opportunity of showing that the suits were not of that character, is no doubt justified. The Court has to hold some enquiry even for determining whether prima facie the plaintiff suing is a public trust not registered under the Act. The extent and nature of the enquiry will of course depend on the allegations in the plaint and the facts and circumstances of each case. But the prima facie conclusion cannot be reached, merely on the acceptance of the defendant's objection u/s 32 without giving any opportunity to the plaintiff to show that the suit is not hit by section 32. But the prima facie conclusion cannot be reached, merely on the acceptance of the defendant's objection u/s 32 without giving any opportunity to the plaintiff to show that the suit is not hit by section 32. Learned counsel appearing for the parties stated before us that proceedings for determination of the question whether the trust in question is a public trust have now been initiated before the Registrar and are pending. That being so, no useful purpose would be served by remitting the cases to the lower Court for a fresh decision u/s 32 after a proper enquiry. For these reasons, the orders made by the lower Court staying the two suits filed by the petitioner are upheld and both these applications are dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. Final Result : Dismissed