ORDER K.C. Agarwal, J. - These two writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution have been preferred one by Ajit Singh and others and the other by the State of U.P., against the judgment of the II Additional District Judge, Rampur, given in Ceiling Appeals Nos. 33 and 57 of 1981 on 20th October, 1981. 2. A notice under S. 10(2) of U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was given to the Trust the Sciende Horse Farm (hereinafter referred to as the Trust) in respect of 591 acres irrigated land in villages Phoolpur, Bichhyee and Bighta in Tehsil Bilaspur, district Rampur. The notice proposed to declare 573 acres land as surplus. The Trust preferred an objection, inter alia, claiming that as it was charitable Trust, it was entitled to exemption under S. 6(1)(f) of the Act. The relevant portion of this provision reads as under : "6(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, land falling in any of the categories mentioned below shall not be taken into consideration for the purposes of determining the ceiling area applicable to, and the surplus and of a tenure-holder, namely (a) to (e) .......... (f) land held from before the first day of May, 1959, by or under a public religious or charitable waqf, trust, endowment, or institution the income from which is wholly utilised for religious or charitable purposes, and not being a waqf, trust or endowment of which the beneficiaries wholly or partly are settlors or members of his family or his descendants." 3. The trust claimed that it was wholly charitable Trust for the benefit and welfare of the Jawans and officers of Scinde Horse Regiment whether serving or retired and for pensions aid, and educational grants to the disabled and the deceased Ex-servicemen and their dependants. 4. Ajit Singh and others moved an application for being impleaded as a party in these proceedings and alleged that they were in possession of the land sought to be declared as surplus and as they had acquired sirdari rights but having been in adverse possession over more than 12 years, the proceedings regarding those plots taken under S. 10 were liable to be dropped. 5. The Prescribed Authority rejected the application of the petitioners and also confirmed the statement issued to the Trust under sub-sec. (2) of S. 10 of the Act. 5. The Prescribed Authority rejected the application of the petitioners and also confirmed the statement issued to the Trust under sub-sec. (2) of S. 10 of the Act. Feeling aggrieved, the Trust preferred an appeal which was appeal No. 102 of 1977 in the Court of the District Judge, Rampur. 6. Ajit Singh and others filed two writ petitions 667 of 1967 and 819 of 1977 challenging the order of the Prescribed Authority rejecting their applications for impleadment. The writ petitions were allowed on 10-2-1978 and the order of the Prescribed Authority on the two applications of the petitioners were quashed. The Prescribed Authority was directed to implead the petitioners in the proceedings and decide the case afresh in accordance with law keeping in mind the observations made in this judgment. The High Court further directed that the copy of the judgment be sent to the District Judge for bringing it to the notice of the Additional District Judge in whose court the appeal preferred by the Trust was pending. 7. Consequent upon the judgment of the High Court, the District Judge allowed the appeal of the trust and sent the case back to the Prescribed Authority for decision on merits after impleading the petitioners as had been directed by the High Court. 8. After remand the Trust did not produce any evidence and was content with the evidence already adduced by it. Ajit Singh and others in addition to the documentary. evidence produced the following witnesses : 1. Kapoor Singh, 2. Birsa Singh, and 3. Ajit Singh. The Trust has produced Brig. Harbans Singh. omits behalf on 29th December, 1976. On the case being remanded, the petitioners did not apply for his cross-examination. 9. The Prescribed Authority held that trust being not covered by S. 6(1)(f) was not entitled to its benefit. He, however, did not find any substance in the case set forth by the petitioners with regard to the acquisition of sirdari rights over the properties in question and, therefore, rejected the objections on merits. Against the judgment of the Prescribed Authority, Ceiling Appeal No. 33 of 1981 was preferred by the Trust whereas Ceiling Appeal No. 57 of 1981 was filed"by the petitioners. The Additional District Judge held that the Trust known as 'Trust Scinde 14 orse' was created for the benefit of the Regiment. Against the judgment of the Prescribed Authority, Ceiling Appeal No. 33 of 1981 was preferred by the Trust whereas Ceiling Appeal No. 57 of 1981 was filed"by the petitioners. The Additional District Judge held that the Trust known as 'Trust Scinde 14 orse' was created for the benefit of the Regiment. Subsequently the said trust obtained 1615 acres land in three villages, Phoolpur, Bishhai and Bihat in Tehsil Bilaspur, Rampur under a permanent lease executed by the State of Rampur on 30th November, 1949. The registered Pattas were filed by the Trust in proof of its claim. Out of the an taken on lease in the said three villages from Rampur State, land measuring 597 acres in the said three villages was turned into a Farm and a name "The Scinde Horse Farm" was given to the same. The learned Additional District Judge elaborately discussed the evidence and the various objects for which the trust had been created, and held that the trust was a charitable trust to which S. 6(1)(f) was applicable. Having found the entitlement of the trust to the benefit of S. 6(1)(f), the learned District Judge took up the question of acquisition of Sirdari rights in the land in question by Ajit Singh and others. He held that since the lease dated 17-12-62 obtained by Ajit Sings and Smt. Harendra Kaur was for a period of ten years, it was not admissible in law. It further found that as the trust was not a disabled person under S. 157 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, it could not let out the same to the aforesaid persons viz., Ajit Singh and Smt. Harendra Kaur. Alternatively, the Additional District Judge looked into the deed as well as other evidence of the petitioners for the purpose of finding out the nature of possession. He held that the possession of Ajit Singh and Smt. Harendra Kaur was permissive as Ajit Singh had himself admitted that he paid usufruct to the Trust till the year 1975-76 fasli. His possession was treated to be permissive. Ajit Singh admitted that he was a Manager of the Trust and that he was realising the income from the property of the Trust and used to deposit the same with it. 10. His possession was treated to be permissive. Ajit Singh admitted that he was a Manager of the Trust and that he was realising the income from the property of the Trust and used to deposit the same with it. 10. With regard to possession, the Additional District Judge, after considering the documentary and oral evidence, held that the trust retook possession of the land in July, 1975 and, thereafter, the land remained in its possession. The finding of the Additional District Judge is as follows : "The documentary, and oral evidence on the record proves beyond shadow of doubt that after July 1975 the Trust was in possession of the land in question. Ajit Singh has filed a number of documents to show his possession over the land in dispute but they all related to the period prior to June, 1975 from which it can be learnt that Ajit Singh and his companion were not in possession of the land after July, 1975. It went through the entire documentary and oral evidence and the entire evidence on the record proves that Ajit Sirigh and others ceased to be in possession of the land since June, 1975. The Lekhpal Sri Raghunandan Prasad and supervisor Kanungo Sri Prem Shanker have stated that on the spot they found possession of the Trust. There is no reason not to place reliance on their evidence. Thus the documentary and oral evidence on record proves that the Trust is in possession of the land in question. The Trust obtained price of the sugarcane from sugar factories through cheques in respect of the cane grown in the land in question. It is, therefore, proved beyond question that Trust came in possession of the land in question somewhere in June, 1975. I believe and hold that Ajit Singh and his associates ceased to occupy the land in question from June, 1975." 11. On these two findings, the appeal of the Trust was allowed and that of the petitioners dismissed. 12. Aggrieved by the judgment, two writ petitions have been filed, Writ No. 15850 of 1981 has been preferred by Ajit Singh and others whereas connected writ petition No. 798 of 1982 has been filed by the State Government. 13. The grievance of the State of U.P. in its writ petition is that since the Trust was not charitable, it was not entitled to the benefit of cl. 13. The grievance of the State of U.P. in its writ petition is that since the Trust was not charitable, it was not entitled to the benefit of cl. (f) of sub-sec. (1) of S. 6. The petitioners in writ petition No. 15850 of 1981 have not only challenged the entitlement of the trust that it could hold the property but also has alleged that by virtue of possession, the petitioners had acquired the sirdari right on the same. 14. The question of possession of the petitioners of writ No. 15850 of 1981 and their claim to have acquired sirdari rights be taken up first. 15. Ajit Singh and Smt. Harendra Kaur obtained a document in their favour on 17-12-1962 from the Trust agreed to share the crop with the trust and further undertake not to claim any rights in the land. Ajit Singh in his deposition before the Prescribed Authority admitted that he worked as a Manager of the properties of the trust up to 1960. It was, thereafter, in 1962 that the land was taken by him for cultivation along with Smt. Harendra Kaur who was the wife of his brother. Thereafter, the land was being cultivated by the other petitioners of this petition. He admitted in his statement that after deducting the expenses he used to deposit the balance in the fund of the Trust. He stated : "Lagan vegerah va our kharcha jo hisab our kharcha karne ke liye kante hain sab kharche katne ke baad cheque va draft ke zariye Commandant ko Laaj ka Rupaya bhejate thai jo Regiment fund main jama hota tha. 1975 ke baad maine koi Rupaya kabhi nahin bheja hai." 16. After considering his statement and the document dated 17-12-1972 which was really not a lease deed but was an agreement, the learned Additional District Judge found that possession of Ajit Singh and others was not in his own right but on behalf of the Trust. The names of Ajit Singh and his associates were recorded in the village record for the first time in 1373 Fasli. Hence, they could (not) claim sirdari rights in question on the basis of the adverse possession. In the instant case, the petitioner No. 1 has no doubt been looking after the properties in the capacity of Manager. The names of Ajit Singh and his associates were recorded in the village record for the first time in 1373 Fasli. Hence, they could (not) claim sirdari rights in question on the basis of the adverse possession. In the instant case, the petitioner No. 1 has no doubt been looking after the properties in the capacity of Manager. Neither did Ajit Singh nor any other person got any independent tenandy right under the document dated 17-12-1962. No independent right had been conferred on him. He had undertaken to look after the properties of the Trust and not to claim any right over the same for himself. Neither he nor Smt. Harendra Kaur or any body holding on their behalf could acquire any right under the Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. The petitioners are, therefore, trespassers de son tort and mere fact that they put forward their own title to the properties would not make them trespassers. See Syed Mohd. Salie Labbai v. Mohd. Hanifa, AIR 1976 SC 1569 . The finding of the learned District Judge that possession of Ajit Singh and Smt. Harendra Kaur was permissive is based on an elaborate consideration of evidence on record. Ajit Singh and his witnesses admitted that all the petitioners have been in joint possession of the lands. So if the possession of Ajit Singh and Smt. Harendra Kaur is recorded to be permissive, the possession of other petitioners shall also be deemed to be permissive. The finding of the Additional District Judge is one of fact. It is not open to this Court to reappraise evidence and to record a finding contrary to that given by the Additional District Judge. To do so, would be overstepping the limits of Article 226 of the Constitution. The function of the High Court is limited to see that ' the subordinate courts or Tribunal function within the limits of its authority. It cannot correct mere error of fact by examining the evidence to reappraise it. To do so, would be overstepping the limits of Article 226 of the Constitution. The function of the High Court is limited to see that ' the subordinate courts or Tribunal function within the limits of its authority. It cannot correct mere error of fact by examining the evidence to reappraise it. In Nagendranath Bora v. Commissioner of Hills Division, AIR 1958 SC 398 , the Supreme Court has held that so far as the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution is concerned, a writ of - certiorari could be issued by the High Court if there was an error of law apparent on the face of the record and not error of fact, however, apparent on the face of the record, could-be a ground for interference by the High Court exercising its writ jurisdiction. 17. The next question is whether the Trust is the charitable one to which S. 6(1)(f) applied. 18. Assailing the finding of the learned Additional District Judge on the aforesaid controversy, the learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri S. S. Bhatnagar, contended that the Trust having not been created by a registered document, could not in law be recognised as such and would in that event be - not entitled to the benefit of S. 6(1)(f). This controversy cannot be raised at the instance of the clients for whom Sri S. S. Bhatnagar appeared. The petitioners of Writ No. 15850, of 81 for whom he appeared, claimed right on the basis of adverse possession. This plea of adverse possession having failed, the question as to whether the Trust was entitled to the benefit of S. 6(1)(f) was between the State and the Trust. However, after examining the merits, the learned Additional District Judge had found that the Trust was created for charitable purpose. 19. It is true that no registered document was filed under which the Trust had been created. In the year 1953, a deed was executed by Lieut. Keith De Lorents Young, who was Commandant of the Scinde Horse Regiment and the Rules of the Trust were framed in the year 1953. In this deed, it is mentioned that in the year 1921 four regiments were amalgamated to form one regiment known as "Scinde Horse". The Regiment held Rs. 4,60,000/- as fund. This fund was held for the regiments by Lieut. Col. In this deed, it is mentioned that in the year 1921 four regiments were amalgamated to form one regiment known as "Scinde Horse". The Regiment held Rs. 4,60,000/- as fund. This fund was held for the regiments by Lieut. Col. Keith De Lorents Young as Commandant of the Regiment. In the said deed of 1953 it is mentioned that on the 20th October 1935 an open Darbar of all available British and Indian officers and other ranks of the regiment was held. In the said meeting following resolution was passed : "That the fund be held upon the trusts for the purposes with the powers and subject to the provisions contained in the draft deed of trust submitted to and explained to this Darbar and identified by the signature of the Commandant and that the appointment of Gindlay and Company Limited by the Commandant as trustee of the fund is hereby approved and that the execution of the trust Deed by the parties concerned be proceeded with." 20. In pursuance of the aforesaid resolution, the Commandant appointed the trustees and the fund of Rs. 4,60000/- was transferred to them. This was declared as`trust fund'. Subsequently, on 30th November, 1949 through a registered deed the Trust obtained the land of three villages which have been mentioned above. Even in the registered deed existence of a trust was admitted. On the basis of these documents, the finding of the learned Addl. District Judge arrived at was that there came into existence the Trust known as "Trust the Scinde Horse" in the year 1936 and it continued to exist even after 1953. 21. Section 6(1)(f) gives the benefit to the charitable trust. The word `charitable' has not been defined in the Act. Sub-s. (21) of S. 3, however, lays down that the word and expression not defined in the Act, but used in the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, shall have the meaning assigned to them in that Act. This expression has been defined in the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act as : "Charitable purpose includes relief of poor, education, medical relief or the advancement of any other object of the general public utility but does not include a purpose which relates exclusively to religious teaching or worship." 22. This expression has been defined in the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act as : "Charitable purpose includes relief of poor, education, medical relief or the advancement of any other object of the general public utility but does not include a purpose which relates exclusively to religious teaching or worship." 22. In order, therefore, to find out as to whether the objects of the Trust are charitable or not, the aforesaid requirements are to be satisfied. It of course should be a charitable purpose for public. `Public' does not mean all the public, nor most of the public, nor very many other people at a place, but so many of them who contra distinguishes them from a few. 23. Keeping the two facts stated above, if 31we were to examine the various objects for which the income wholly from the lands held was being utilised for charitable purpose and, as such, the same shall not be taken into consideration for the purpose of determining the ceiling area. From the documents on record, the Additional District Judge found that the income of the Trust was being utilised for the officers and soldiers of the regiment and for charitable military institutions. He found that in the Scheme of the Management of the Trust formed in 1953, it was provided that the Scinde Horse Farm was started with a view to : (a) contribute to the Government's Grow More Food Compaign. (b) provide employment to the deserving pensioners and reservists. (c) assist the regimental ex-servicemen in settlement and rehabilitation. (d) institute benefits for all personnel of the regiment past and present in the following way : (i) pension to the poor and disabled, (ii) education grants to dependants, (iii) pension to widows and orphans, and (iv) improve the general amenities. 24. The aforesaid purposes are intended to benefit the personnel of the regiment as a whole and their dependants and widows of the Regiment. Consequently, the Additional District Judge correctly gave the benefit of S. 6(1)(f) to the Trust. As a matter of fact, it was the property of the Trust the Scinde Horse which was a charitable trust. 25. For what I have said above, I find that the submission of Sri S. S. Bhatnagar that the Scinde Horse Trust was not a trust is not correct. It was a trust created for charitable purposes and was also a juristic person. 26. 25. For what I have said above, I find that the submission of Sri S. S. Bhatnagar that the Scinde Horse Trust was not a trust is not correct. It was a trust created for charitable purposes and was also a juristic person. 26. It is true that no formal document creating the trust in question has been filed in the instant case. The trust, however, need not be express. It may be constructive as well. A person who without title chooses to take upon himself the character of a trustee becomes a trustee de son tort. Such person is also described as a de facto trustee. B.K. Mukherjee in this book "The Hindu Law of religious and charitable Trusts" at P. 350 said. "A Constructive trust arises not by act of paries but by operation of law, as for example, when a trustee gains some personal advantage by availing himself of his position as a trustee. Thus if a lease were the subject matter of a public trust, a constructive trust would arise if the trustee renewed a lease in his own name. He would in such a case be deemed to be a trustee for those interested in the original term and this could be equally so if the trustee was a trustee as of right or a trustee de son tort, and were there a breach of such constructive trust as by making away with the renewed lease or by not applying its profits for the purpose of the trust there would be such a breach of trust as is contemplated by the section. A suit would, therefore, lie under this section against a trustee of an express or constructive trust, whether such a trustee was so de jure or de son tort." 27. In the instant case, so far as the petitioner Ajit Singh and others are concerned, they could not challenge the title of the trust.: The State Government, at no point of time, alleged that the trust was not a validly created trust. The dispute raised by it only was that it was not a charitable one. That apart, from a long lapse of time it is being treated as a trust. In such circumstances, deduction can be presumed. 28. In the result, the two writ petitions fail and are dismissed with costs.