JUDGMENT V. P. Gupta, J.—In the suit the plaintiff alleges that in Sambat 925 B. K. Raj Kumar Birsingh ji got one Dharamsala constructed near Katcha Tank, Nahan, known as Catcha Johar Dharmasala (serai). This Dharmsala (serai) was dedicated for use as a staying place of the general public and a public trust for public purposes of charitable nature was created by Raj-kumar Bir Singh ji. The details of the property are given in paras 2 and 3 of the plaint. Ft is alleged that the Dharamsala (serai) was used by the general public and travellers without let or hinderance. Rajkumar Birsingh ji died in Sambat 1938 B. K. and during his life time, the Dharamsala (serai) remained under his care and management as he was the founder of the trust and was a sole trustee during his life time. After his death, the property was cared for and loocked after by his heir, and successor Kanwar Ranzor Singh and after the death of Kanwar Ranzor Singh, by his son Shri Jagat Bahadur Singh. 2. It is further alleged that Shri Jagat Bahadur Singh out of greed and avarice started mis-appropriating the trust property and claimed the same to be his personal property. On 25th April 1963, he sold a part of Khasra No. 991 (out of the disputed property) to Surjan Singh (defendant No, 2), Surjan Singh sold the same to Birender Kumar, (defendant No. 3) on 29-3-1968. Shri Jagat Bahadur Singh thereafter sold a part of the property to defendants Nos. 4 and 5 on 1-1-1970 for which a mutation was sanctioned on 4-11-1971. 3. The plaintiff alleges that defendants Nos. 2 to 5 had full knowledge of the fact that the property transferred to them was a trust property and was not capable of being transferred. The defendants Nos. 2 to 5 are not bona fide purchasers for value or without notice and that infect they are constructive trustees of this public trust property. 4. On these allegations, the plaintiff prays that defendants 1 to 5 are liable to be removed as trustees and new trustees be appointed in their place. Another prayer is that the defendants be directed to deliver the possession of the property to the new trustees and be asked to render accounts for the amounts received by them a trustees and pay the same to the plaintiff. 5. Another prayer is that the defendants be directed to deliver the possession of the property to the new trustees and be asked to render accounts for the amounts received by them a trustees and pay the same to the plaintiff. 5. This suit was originally filed in the court of the District Judge, Sirmour district, at Solan on 16-5-1977. Vide order dated 1st January, 1979, the ^District Judge, Solan, returned the suit for presentation to a proper court. 6. In .these circumstances, the suit was filed in this Court on 13-4-1979. Notices of the suit were issued to the defendants. 7. During the pendency of the suit, Sh. Jagat Bahadur Singh (defendant No. 1) died his legal heirs were brought on record. The legal representatives of defendant No. 1 and defendants Nos. 2 to 5 filed written statements. 8. In the written statements, the defendants allege that the suit is not maintainable under Section 92 Civil P. C. and the same is bad for mis-joinder of parties and causes of action. It is also alleged that no suit is competent against the defendants as the defendants are not the trustees of the property, It is alleged that the property is not a public trust property and the suit is not correctly valued for the purpose of court-fee and the same is barred by time. Plea of estoppel is also raised and it is alleged that the defendants have become owners of the property by adverse possession. It is further alleged that the suit is barred by res-judicata because an earlier suit filed regarding the same property was dismissed on 26-4-1976. On merits, the plaintiffs allegations are denied and defendants Nos. 2 to 5 claim to be bona fide purchasers for value and without notice. 9. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed on 3-8-1982.: 1. Whether Rajkumar Bir Singh ji created a public trust for public purposes of charitable nature and dedicated a Dharamsala alongwith the appurtenant land as detailed in para No. 2 of the plaint to the said Trust for the aforesaid purposes in Sambat 1925 ? 2. Whether the Dharamsala mentioned in issue No. 1 has ever-since the time of construction been used by the general public without any let or hindrance from any quarter and Rajkumar Bir Singh ji and after his death Kn. 2. Whether the Dharamsala mentioned in issue No. 1 has ever-since the time of construction been used by the general public without any let or hindrance from any quarter and Rajkumar Bir Singh ji and after his death Kn. Ranzor Singh had been looking after and managing this Dharamsala only as Trustees ? 3. If issues Nos. I and 2 are proved in favour of the plaintiff, whether Jagat Bahadur Singh son of Kn. Ranzor Singh was competent to alienate any part of the aforesaid Dharamsala or the land appurtenant thereto ? 4 Whether defendants Nos. 3 to 5 are bona fide purchasers for valuable consideration as such the sales made in their fovour is protected under Section 49 of the Transfer of Property Act ? 5. Whether the defendants or any of them have effected any improvements on the suit property. If so, what value and to what effect ? 6. Whether the defendants have become owners of property in dispute by adverse possession ? 7. Whether the suit is bad for mis-joinder of parties ? 8. Whether the suit in the present form is not competent ? 9. Whether the suit is not properly valued for the purposes of court fee? 10. Whether the suit is barred by res-judicata ? 11. Whether the suit is within time ? 12. Whether and if so to what relief is the plaintiff entitled ? Parties produced evidence in support of their respective contentions, 10. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through i;he record of the case. My findings on the various issues are as follows ;— Issue No. 7. 11. This issue was not contested by the defendants. A perusal of the plaint discloses that the suit is not bad for mis-joinder of the parties. The plaintiff claims the property as a "trust-property". The defendants are alleged to be the trustees of this property. In these circumstances this issue is decided against the defendants. Issue No. 8. 12. This issue is not contested by the defendants. The suit is under Section 92 of the Civil P. C. and all the relief’s claimed by the plaintiff are available under Section 92 Civil P. C. It is a different matter that suit may ultimately be dismissed for being not competent under Section 92 Civil P, C. This issue is, therefore, decided against the defents. The suit is under Section 92 of the Civil P. C. and all the relief’s claimed by the plaintiff are available under Section 92 Civil P. C. It is a different matter that suit may ultimately be dismissed for being not competent under Section 92 Civil P, C. This issue is, therefore, decided against the defents. Issue No. 9 13. The plaintiff has fixed a court-fee of Rs. 19.50. A suit under Section 92 Civil P. C. requires a fixed court fee of Rs. 19.50 under Article 13 clause (vi) of the second Schedule of the Himachal Pradesh Court Fees Act. The issue is also not contested by the defendants. This issue is, therefore, decided against the defendants, Issue No. 10. 14. A Civil Suit No. 1-S-IR 1 of 73 was filed by S/Shri R. L. Gupta and others against the present defendants in the court of the District Judge, Sirmour District at Sola. A copy of the plaint is Ex. C-i and copies of written statements are C-2 and|C-3 This suit was under Section 92 Civil Procedure Code. Vide judgment dated 26th April 1974 (Ex. C-4) the District Judge held that the suit was not competent because a valid sanction under Sections 91 and 92 of the Advocate, General for instituting the suit had not been obtained by the plaintiffs. The suit was dismissed for this reason. 15. As no decision was given on merits, therefore, the present suit is not barred on the principles of res-judicata. The issue is not contested by the defendants. This issue is decided against the defendants. Issue No. 1 : 16. To under stand the controversy, it is better to reproduce the pedigree table of Sh. Jagat Bahadur Singh from Para-6 of-the plaint: Maharaja Feteh Parkash 1 Raja Raghubir Prakash Surjan Singh Sh. Bir Singh Ranzor Singh Jagat Bahadur Singh 17. The plaintiff alleges that a "public trust" for the public purposes of charitable nature was created by Rajkumar Bir Singh in the year 1868 (Sambat 1925 B. K.). Rajkumar Bir Singh got a Dharamsala (Serai) constructed and dedicated the same alongwith disputed land for public purposes thus divesting him of the ownership rights, 18. Rajkumar Bir Singh died in the year 1881 (Sambat 1938 B. K.). After his death the property was inherited by Ranzor Singh son of Surjan Singh. Rajkumar Bir Singh got a Dharamsala (Serai) constructed and dedicated the same alongwith disputed land for public purposes thus divesting him of the ownership rights, 18. Rajkumar Bir Singh died in the year 1881 (Sambat 1938 B. K.). After his death the property was inherited by Ranzor Singh son of Surjan Singh. Ranzor Singh also died on 14-11-1947 and his property was inherited by Jagat Bahadur Singh. It is alleged that Bir Singh, Ranzor Singh and Jagat Bahadur Singh managed the disputed property, i, e., the Dharamsala (Serai) and the appertinent land as trustee and the« trust was created by Bir Singh in the year 1868. The defendants do not admit the disputed property of a "public trust" for public purposes of charitable nature. It is alleged that Bir Singh and his heirs remained the owners of the property and managed the same as owners that the same was never dedicated. There was no intention to create any trust for public purposes of a charitable or religious nature. 19. Now Ram Gopal Abi (P W-l) aged 79 years, is a resident of Nahan. He states that Dharamsala (Serai) in, dispute is a two storeyed building having about 24 rooms out of which 20 rooms are in the lower storey and four rooms in the first floor. It has a big gate through which even a camel can pass and on the upper portion of the gate there is an inscription on a stone (possibly of marble). The inscription is to the effect that the serai was built by Kanwar Bir Singh in B. K. Sambat 1925, He also states that the serai was used by public freely and the property was utilized for public benefit and public purposes. The maintenance of serai was done by kn. Ranzor Singh or his agents and the serai remained in the use of public till 1963. 20. The plaintiff has also produced Des Raj (P W-2), Kanshi Ram (P W-3), Phool Chand (P W-4), Ram Gopal (P W-5), K. N. Dalip Singh, Advocate (P W-7), Jagmohan Ramol (PW-8), Chuni Lai (PW-9), Sadhu Ram (P W-ll), Ahlak Mohd. (P W, 12), Jai Gopal Attri (P W-l 3), and Suraj Mal(PW-14). All these witnesses corroborate the statement of Shri Ram Gopal Abi (P W-1). (P W, 12), Jai Gopal Attri (P W-l 3), and Suraj Mal(PW-14). All these witnesses corroborate the statement of Shri Ram Gopal Abi (P W-1). They also state that the disputed serai was being used by public and the travelers used to tie their cattle and horses in the open vacant site (know as parao) adjoining the serai. They further state that chowkidars used to look after the serai and that some alterations, additions and changes were affected in the serai within the last about 12 years by the defendants. They have been seeing the serai in use by the public since their childhood and that there was a very big gate for entering the serai through which even a camel or an elephant could pass. All the aforesaid witnesses are elderly and respectable persons belonging to Nahan. 21. Phool Chand (P W-4) also states that the serai was used by public free of any charges and that the persons could stay in the serai for three days without seeking any permission from anybody but after three days, the per mission of Kn. Ranzor Singh was to be obtained. 22. Suraj Mai (P W-l4) a pensioner aged 79 years of Nahan was employed as a Manager by Kn. Ranzor Singh in 1940 and was also the General Attorney of Jagat Bahadur. He resigned from service in the year 1953. He, states that the serai was used for public purposes and the expenses for the maintenance of the serai were incurred by Kn. Ranzor Singh and a separate sell was in existence for the maintenance of this serai of which Bahadur Singh was the Incharge. A chowkidar had been employed for this serai and that Kn. Ranzor Singh and Jagat Bahadur were managing the serai as trustees. He corroborates the statement of Shri.Ram Gopal (P W-l) in all material particulars. He further states that the chowkidars were paid by Kn. Ranzor Singh, There were two shops in the serai which were given on rent shopkeepers. These shopkeepers used to pay the rent to Bahadur Singh for further payment to Jagat Bahadur and Ranzor Singh. The vacant space (parao) was used by the public for tethering cattle or for parking vehicles etc. 23. The plaintiff has also produced Ram Saroop (C W-l), Nand Lal (C W-2) and Su4arshan Singh (C W-3). Their statement were recorded by a Local Commissioner. The vacant space (parao) was used by the public for tethering cattle or for parking vehicles etc. 23. The plaintiff has also produced Ram Saroop (C W-l), Nand Lal (C W-2) and Su4arshan Singh (C W-3). Their statement were recorded by a Local Commissioner. All these witnesses also corroborate the statements of the other witnesses of the plaintiff and they state that the serai was used by the public and also for marriages etc. Similar is their statement regarding the user of the vacant side (parao) adjoining the serai by the public. 24. Ram Gopal Sharma (P W-5) has proved the entries of the revenue records, Shri Jagmohan Ramol (P W-8) has also^ stated that he was a Sanitary Inspector of Municipal Committee, Nahan, an3 used to look after the clean liness and sanitation of the serai during the Renuka Fair. Shanti Sawroop (P W-6) is a photographer of Nahan. He has proved certain photographs of serai and states that some paintings are visible on the walls of the serai. He further states that on the upper portion of the gate an engraved stone had been fixed, 25. Sunder Singh (P W-10) has proved a copy of the resolution Ex. PW 10/A dated 21-1 1973 by which the Congress Committee of Nahan decided that the Deputy Commissioner, Nanan, be approached for proper management of the serai as the same was not being managed properly. 26. In rebuttal (D W-l) Barinder Kumar (defd. No. 3) and (D W-2) Kuldip Chand (defd. No. 4) have appeared as witnesses. They state that the disputed property was not used by public and that Jagat Bahadur Singh used to let out the same to the different persons. 27. From the oral evidence, it is proved that the disputed serai was got constructed in the year 1868 by Kn. Bir Singh. The public had access to this serai and the travellers used to stay in the serai during Renuka Fair days and on other days of the year without payment of any charges. The serai was also used by the public for the solemnisation of marriages etc. The vacant site (parao) adjoining the serai was also being used for parking or keeping the trucks, Jeeps, bullock-carts etc. and for tethering of cattle, mules etc. The serai was also used by the public for the solemnisation of marriages etc. The vacant site (parao) adjoining the serai was also being used for parking or keeping the trucks, Jeeps, bullock-carts etc. and for tethering of cattle, mules etc. The management of serai remained with Ranzor Singh and Jagat Bahadur Singh and they used to realise the rent of the two shops which were located in the serai premises. Chowkidars had been engaged to look after the serai and there chowkidars were paid by Ranzor Singh and Jagat Bahadur Singh. 28. The plaintiff has also produced some documentary evidence. The disputed property is situated in Khasra Nos. 914, 915, 955, 956, 959, 962. 963, 957, 960 961 and 958 and the old numbers of the present disputed Khasra number, were 991 with GOSHAS, A and B, 992, 993 with GOSHAS, 994 and 995 with GOSHAS, 996 and 997 of the old misal haquiat 1949-50 as is mentioned in para-2 of the plaint. 29. In the copy of Khasra pemaish bandobast 1949-50^ (Ex. P W 5/D) Khasra Nos. 991, 992, 993, 994, and 995 are entered in the ownership of Kn. Ranzor Singh son of Surjan Singh. The possession over Khasra Nos. 991, 993, 994 and 995 is of Kn. Ranzor Singh the owner, while Khasra No. 992 (a residential house) is entered in the possession of Smt. Kariman Bbatyarin. Khasra No. 994 is entered as a Katcha latrine, Khasra No. 995 is entered as parao (vacant site) and 993 as a demolished site relating to parao. The old Khasra Nos. of 991, 992, 993, 994 and 995 are given as 1203, 1204, 1205, 1206 and 1207. In the Khasra Pemaish of sambat 1989-90 (Ex. P W 5/C) the new Khasra Nos. carved out of old Khasra Nos. 995, 991, 992, 993, 994 and 996 are 1745, 1747 and 1748. 30. In the copy of Khatoni & Khasra Paimaish for 1989-90 (Ex. P W 5/C) Khasra No. 1745, 1747 and 1748 are entered in the ownership of Kn. Ranzor Singh son of Sarjan Singh. Khasra No. 1745 is shown as Uftada Sehan Gair Mumkin (demolished court-yard), Khasra No. 1947 is shown as Gair Mwnkin Parao (vacant site) and Khasra No. 1948 is shown as Gair Mumkin Serai. All these. Khasra Nos. are shown in the possession of Kn. Ranzor Singh Similarly in another copy of Khasra-pemaish Bandobast Kanuni (Ex. Khasra No. 1745 is shown as Uftada Sehan Gair Mumkin (demolished court-yard), Khasra No. 1947 is shown as Gair Mwnkin Parao (vacant site) and Khasra No. 1948 is shown as Gair Mumkin Serai. All these. Khasra Nos. are shown in the possession of Kn. Ranzor Singh Similarly in another copy of Khasra-pemaish Bandobast Kanuni (Ex. P W 5/F) Khasra Nos. 1203, 1204, 1205, 1206 and 1207 are entered in the ownership of Kn. Surjan Singh and Sher Singh S/o Maharaja Fateh Prakash, Khasra No. 1206 and 1207 are shown in possession of the owners while Khasra, Nos. 1203 in possession of one Budhu. Khasra No. 1204 in possession of Mice Paswan and Khasra No. 1205 in possession of Saria Ram. In Khasra Nos. 1203 and 1205, shops were existing while Khasra No. 1207 was vacant and Khasra No. 1204 there was a serai and Khasra No. 1206 was the compound of the serai. 31. From the aforesaid entries of the revenue records, it is proved that there was a serai and a parao (vacant site) in the disputed property. The ownership of the property was in the name of Kn, Ranzor Singh but he was never entered as a trustee of the property. The ownership of the property is also not shown to be of public. Even in the possessory column Kn. Ranzor Singh or Surjan Singh are shown to be in occupation. Some individuals are shown in possession of shops and the house but the possession of these persons can only be as tenants or licensees under the owners. The oral evidence proves that the shopkeepers occupying shops were paying rent to the owners i. e., Kn. Ranzor Singh or Jagat Bahadur Singh. Hence entries in the revenue records do not support the plaintiffs case. 32. A Photostat copy of an extract from the Sirmour Ga-atteer (mark-A) is also produced by the plaintiff. It only proves that a good serai a located in the town of Nahan but it does not prove that this serai is a public trust property. Mark-C is a book regarding the history of Riyast Sirmour. In this book it is mentioned that adjoining the Katcha tank, a Dharamsala (serai) was contracted for public purposes in Sambat 1925 and Kn. Bir Singh got this serai constructed. This document is not admissible in evidence as it is not proved to be an authenticated document. Mark-C is a book regarding the history of Riyast Sirmour. In this book it is mentioned that adjoining the Katcha tank, a Dharamsala (serai) was contracted for public purposes in Sambat 1925 and Kn. Bir Singh got this serai constructed. This document is not admissible in evidence as it is not proved to be an authenticated document. Moreover even if its contents are admitted to ba correct, then too it only proves that one serai was got construct ed by Kn. Bir Singh in sambat 1925 for public benefit. 33. The plaintiff has also produced the copies of a complaint under Sec. 204 IPC (Ex. P W 9/A) and the copies of statements of Kuldin Chand (Ex. P- W9/B). Binesh Chand (Ex. P-W 9/C). Shanti Sawroop (P W 9/D) for proving the fact that defendants had admitted that an engraved stone was fixed over the main gate of the serai mentioning that the serai was got constructed by Raj Kumar Bir Singh. The statements of Kuldip Chand, Dinesh Chand and Shanti Sawroop were recorded in a criminal case as accused persons in April 1973 and are of no avail. 34. There is sufficient proof (oral & documentary) that the serai was got constructed by Bir Singh in sambat 1925 (1868) and it was used by general public as a serai. The management of serai was with Ranzor Singh or Jagat Bahadur Singh and these persons had been realising the rents from the shopkeepers. They were also looking after this serai and has engaged the services of chowkidars who were being paid by them. During the Renuka Fair for three days the travelers or the pilgrims used to stay in the serai without any permission, but besides these three days, the travelers or the pilgrims has to take permission to Jagat Bahadur. 35. In the revenue records the ownership of the property remained in the name of Ranzor Singh or Jagat Bahadur. A mutation regarding inheritance of Ranzor Singh in favour of Jagat Bahadur was sanctioned on 17-4-1971 (Ex. D 4/1). The possession is shown either of tenants or of the owners but the same is not shown in possession of any trust or any individual person as a trustee. 36. Thus the oral and documentary evidence prove the Raj Kumar Bir Singh and Kn, Ranzor Singh or Kn. D 4/1). The possession is shown either of tenants or of the owners but the same is not shown in possession of any trust or any individual person as a trustee. 36. Thus the oral and documentary evidence prove the Raj Kumar Bir Singh and Kn, Ranzor Singh or Kn. Jagat Bahadur Singh never transferred the ownership or the control/management of the property to any person as a tarustee. The owners also never expressly or impliedly accepted their position as trustees. In fact there is no evidence that the owners divested their ownership rights in the property 37. The learned counsel for the plaintiff contends that the property was used by the public without let or hindrance and, therefore, it should be presumed that it is a public trust for religious or charitable purposes. The property was dedicated by the owners to the public and a trust by implication was created. 38. To attract the provision of Sec. 92 C. P. C. it is necessary that there should be some breach with respect to any express or constructive trust created for public purpose of a charitable or religious nature. The first requirement for applicability of Section 92 C. P. C. is that there should be a trust of a public nature. After the proof of a public trust the plaintiff has further to prove that there is a breach of such trust and some directions of the court are necessary for the administration of that trust. 39. The learned counsel for the defendants contends that a public trust was never created and the owner had no intention to dedicate the property, for the purposes of a public trust. In Chandu Lai v. Rampal Mai and another, AIR 1933 Lahore, 198, a Dharamsala (serai) was built for public welfare. It was held that the same could not be created to be a public trust for religious purposes. Reliance was placed upon para-438 of the Maynes Hindu Law, where in it is stated : "The last case arises where the founder applies his own property to the creation of a pagoda or any other religious or charitable foundation keeping the property itself, and the control over it, absolutely in his own hands. The community may be greatly benefited by this arrangement, so long as it lasts, but its continuance is entirely at his own pleasure. The community may be greatly benefited by this arrangement, so long as it lasts, but its continuance is entirely at his own pleasure. It is like a private chapel in a gentlemans park, and the fact that the public have been permitted to resort to it will not prevent its being closed, or pulled down, provided there has been no dedication of it to the public” It is held that when there is a dedication to the public or to God with respect to the property in Hindu Law, there should be a sankalp and samarpan whereby the property is completely given away and the owner completely divests himself of the ownership in the property. In the absence of such sankalp and samarpan the mere fact that marriage party used to be put up in a Dharamsala built by a person or the fact that Dharamsala is built as a memorial to a dead person without any express dedication to the public does not make such Dharamsala a public trust. 40. In Maharani Hemlata Kumari Debt and Ors,, v. Gauri Shanker Tewari and Ors. AIR 1941 Privy Counsel, 38, there were certain bathing-ghats on the bank of Ganga at Benaras. These bathing-ghats were being used by the public. A dispute arose as to whether a religious endowment had been created or not. It was held that for creating a religious endowment there must be a dedication which may be total or partial. In case the dedication is proved then the property could be public trust property or in the nature of a religious endowment. 41. In Bhekdhari Singh and Ors. v. Sri Ram Chanderji and Ors., AIR 1931 Patna, 275, it was held that the donor of a religious endowment constitutes himself as a mutwali for the deities there must be some unmistakable act to show that the possession was transferred to the deities and the donor completely divested himself of the ownership of the property because the donor and donee are the same. It is further held that effective way of showing this transfer of possession is by altering the land register. In this judgment the donor was himself a mutwali for the deities and the donee in whose favour the religious endowment was to be created was the same person. Thus the donor and the donee were the same. It is further held that effective way of showing this transfer of possession is by altering the land register. In this judgment the donor was himself a mutwali for the deities and the donee in whose favour the religious endowment was to be created was the same person. Thus the donor and the donee were the same. It was held that the land revenue entries were not changed and as such the transfer or the dedication by the donor was not proved because by changing the revenue entries or by doing a positive act, the dedication could be proved. 42. In Smt. Mahani Dassi and Ors. v. Pareshnath Thakur and Ors.,AlR 1954, Orissa, 198 it is held that the mere fact that an idol is proved to have been established does not by itself create an endowment of property in favour of the idol. The idol may be installed and worshipped without any property being dedicated to it. If property is dedicated a religious trust is created and the property vests absolutely in the idol though the management may be left in the hands of the trustees, but the title to the property itself is in the idol and not in the shebayat. 43. In The Bihar State Board of Religious Trust (Patna) v. Mahanth Sri Beseshwar Dass, AIR 1971 Supreme Court 2057, it is held that the mere fact that the public having been freely admitted to the temple cannot mean that the courts should readily infer there from dedication to the public. The value of such public user as evidence of dedication depends on the circumstances which give strength to the inference that the user was as of right. 44. Now in the present case the plaintiffs evidence only establishes that the disputed property was being used by public as a Dharamsala (serai) or a parao. In the Dharamsala there are some shops which were given on rent to some tenants and the rent was being realised by the owners i. e. Raznor Singh, Jagat Bahadur Singh etc. The travellers could stay in the Dharamsala for three days without any permission from the owner but beyond three days, permission had to be sought from the owners i. e., Kn. Ranzor Singh or Kn. Jagat Bahadur Singh. The property was looked after by chowkidars who were paid by Kn. Ranzor Singh or Kn. Jagat Bahadur Singh, Kn. The travellers could stay in the Dharamsala for three days without any permission from the owner but beyond three days, permission had to be sought from the owners i. e., Kn. Ranzor Singh or Kn. Jagat Bahadur Singh. The property was looked after by chowkidars who were paid by Kn. Ranzor Singh or Kn. Jagat Bahadur Singh, Kn. Ranzor Singh or Kn. Jagat Bahadur Singh never maintained any accounts of income or expenditure and accounts were never demanded from them by the public or by any other authority. The revenue entries were not changed and the ownership and possession of the property remained in the name of Kn. Ranzor Singh or Jagat Bahadur Singh till the time the property was transferred to defendants 2 to 5. There is no evidence that the owners divested themselves or dedicated the property to a public or religious trust at any time. Thus keeping in view the various circumstances, and the treatment of the property by Kn. Ranzor Singh and Jagat Bahadur Singh. I hold that Rajkumar Bir Singh, Kn. Ranzor Singh and Kn. Jagat Bahadur Singh never dedicated the disputed property for a public or charitable purpose and that no public trust was created. Issue No. 1 is decided against the plaintiff. Issue No. 2. 45. Under issue No. 1,1 have held that a public trust .was not created. I have . further held that the Dharamsala which was got constructed by Kn. Bir Singh was under the management of Kn, Bir Singh, Kn, Ranzor Singh and Kn. Jagat Bahadur Singh and they were looking after the some as their own property and not as a trustees of the same. The issue accordingly decided against the plaintiff. Issue No. 3. 46. As issues Nos. 1 and 2 have not been proved in favour of the plaintiff, therefore, no decision is required on this issue. If issues Nos. 1 and 2 had been proved then Jagat Bahadur Singh was incompetent to alienate the disputed property. Issue No. 4. 47. Some property was sold by Jagat Bahadur Singh in favour of Surjan Singh (defendant No. 2) by a registered sale deed but the registered sale deed or its copy has not been exhibited. Surjan Singh (defendant No. 2) further sold the property to defendant No. 3 by a registered sale-deed but the copy of the aforesaid registered sale-deed has also not been proved. Surjan Singh (defendant No. 2) further sold the property to defendant No. 3 by a registered sale-deed but the copy of the aforesaid registered sale-deed has also not been proved. The sale in favour of Surjan Singh is stated in the plaint of April, 1963, and by Surjan Singh in favour of defendant No. 3, in March, 1968. Jagat Bahadur Singh also sold the property to Kuldip Chand and Dinesh Chand (Defendants No. 4 and 5) in 1970 for which a mutation was sanctioned on 4-11-1971. A receipt mark-D (dated 1-1-1970) was executed by Jagat Bahadur Singh for Rs. 37,000 regarding receipt of consideration from defendants No. 4 and 5, The sale of the property could not be effected except by a registered deed in favour of defendants Nos. 4 and 5 and for this reason the receipt mark-D cannot be admitted in evidence. As the sales in favour of defendants Nos. 3 to 4 have not been proved, therefore, provisions of Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act cannot be attracted. This issue is decided accordingly. Issue No. 5 48. Defendants have produced evidence to prove that they have effected improvements on the suit property. This fact is also not denied by the plaintiff that the defendants have made additions and alterations in the disputed property. As the plaintiff has not been able to prove that any public trust was created regarding the suit property, therefore, it is not necessary to decide this issue. No arguments were also addressed on this issue. If the property had been a public trust property then in that case defendants cannot claim anything for improvements. This issue is decided accordingly. Issues Nos. 6 and 11. 49. The defendants are admittedly in possession of the property. A part of the property which was sold to Suran Singh (defendant No. 2) in 1963 is in possession of defendants 2 and 3 from 1963. The defendants claim ownership to this property by sale. As these defendants are in possession of the property under a invalid transfer therefore they are in adverse possession of this property for a period of more than 12 years. The plaintiff did not file any suit within a period of 12 years for this property. The defendants claim ownership to this property by sale. As these defendants are in possession of the property under a invalid transfer therefore they are in adverse possession of this property for a period of more than 12 years. The plaintiff did not file any suit within a period of 12 years for this property. Regarding the remaining property, the defendants 4 and 5 claim possession from the year 1970 and their possession cannot be deemed to be adverse and suit is within time. These issues are decided accordingly. Issue No. 12 50. The view of my findings on issues Nos. 1 and 2, the plaintiffs suit 3 dismissed. Keeping in view the facts and the circumstances of the case, he parties are left to bear their own costs. Suit dismissed -