JUDGMENT 1. - There is situated in the town of Bijai Nagar tehsil Beawar district Ajmer one house property including 18 shops a verandah a chowk and five rooms on the ground floor and one room on the first floor. This property was constructed by late Seth Shri Chand son of Seth Shri Mool Chand Oswal lain resident of Naya Bas Beawar. Seth Shri Chand had no son. His wife had predeceased him. He had four daughters named Dhapu Bai Vilam Kanwar Bai Paras Kanwar Bai and Phool Kanwar Bai. it appears that his daughter Smt Dhapu Bai was more nearer and dearer to him probably because she looked after him in his old age Smt.Dhapu Bai was married to Seth Sardarmal. Guman Mal plaintiff No. 1 and Paras Mal defendant No. 2 were sons of Seth Sardar Mal from Smt. Dhapu Bai daughter of deceased Seth Shri Chand, Harak Chand plaintiff No. 2 alleged himself to be one of the trustees of Seth Shrichand Dharmashala Bijainagar and Man Mal defendant No. 3 was also said to be another trustee. 2. In reality the litigation arising out of Civil Suit No. 2 of 1967 instituted by Guman Mal and Hark Chand is being keenly contested by Guman Mal and Paras Mal-the two real brothers and heirs of their mother Smt. Dhapu Bai. According to the plaintiffs Guman Mal and Harak Chand Seth Shrichand on May 13, 1542 settled and dedicated the aforesaid property by creating a Trust for public and charitable purposes and since then the said property ceased to be in the ownership and possession of late Seth Shrichand. They alleged that Seth Shri Chand had appointed six trustees named Champa Lal Harak Chand (plaintiff No. 2) Man Mal (defendant No. 3). Seth Sardar Mal-deceased father of plaintiff No. 1 and defendant No. 2 Seth Kalyanmal Mutha and Sett Kastoor Chand. This property was named as Seth Shri Chand Abani Dharamshala popularly known as 'Abani Jain' Dharamshala Bijainagar. Since that datethe trustees were in possession of the property and managing the same. Amongst the trustees it was pleaded Seth Sardar Mal son-in-law of late Shri Chand and on his death plaintiff No. 1 was acting as Managing Trustee on behalf the trustees. In the year 1964 Paras Mal defendant No. 2 (another son of Sardar Mal) was temporarily deputed by Guman Mal plaintiff No. 1. Amongst the trustees it was pleaded Seth Sardar Mal son-in-law of late Shri Chand and on his death plaintiff No. 1 was acting as Managing Trustee on behalf the trustees. In the year 1964 Paras Mal defendant No. 2 (another son of Sardar Mal) was temporarily deputed by Guman Mal plaintiff No. 1. to look after the management and affairs of Dharamshala on his behalf. However Paras Mal did not behave in a proper manner. Plaintiff No. I re-took the management. It was alleged that Kishan Singh defendant No. 1 in collusion with Paras Mal obtained a decree for Rs. 11.408.50 on the basis of an award dated November 15, 1965 from Court of Senior Civil Judge Ajmer. A charge was created over the said property. Kishan Singh applied for execution of his decree and in Execution Case No. 30/1966 filed by him the suit property was ordered to be auctioned by the Court. The plaintiffs alleged that Paras Mal had no proprietary right over the suit property which was public trust property and was as such not liable to sale in execution of the decree obtained by Kishan Singh against Paras Mal. The plaintiffs thus in Civil Suit No. 2/1967 instituted by them on January 20, 1967 in the Court of Senior Civil Judge Ajmer prayed for a decree that it be declared that the suit property was a Trust property and was not liable for any sale in execution of the decree obtained by Kishan Singh against Paras Mal and also a decree for permanent injunction restraining Kishan Singh from getting the said property sold in execution of the decree obtained by him. 3. The suit was contested by all the three defendants impleaded by the plaintiffs. All of them admitted that the suit property belonged to Seth Srichand and was in his ownership. They however denied that Seth Srichand dedicated the suit property for charitable purpose by creating a public trust for using this property as Dharamshala. It was also stated that the trust if any is quite illegal void vague and inoperative as no registered document existed and in any case the trust was not acted upon. Paras Mal and Man Mal and other trustees never came in possession of the property and nor managed the same. It was also stated that the trust if any is quite illegal void vague and inoperative as no registered document existed and in any case the trust was not acted upon. Paras Mal and Man Mal and other trustees never came in possession of the property and nor managed the same. Par as Mal further pleaded that late Srichand had executed a will in respect of the suit property in his favour on October 27, 1949 and after the death of Srichand Paras Mal became the owner and got possession of the suit property on the basis and under the will. He pleaded that he wanted to establish a new permanent cinema at Bijainagar in the front portion of the suit property and he applied to the District Magistrate Ajmer for granting necessary permission for the same. The District Magistrate asked Paras Mal to produce the title deeds of the property and so he handed over the original will and other documents to the District Magistrate Ajmer on September 25 1963 at Bijainagar The original will dated October 27, 1949 and other documents remained in the office of the District Magistrate. But later on Paras Mal was intimated from the office of the Collector and District Magistrate Ajmer that the original will was not on the file of the Collectorate. Paras Mal alleged that it appears to him that Guman Mal plaintiff No. 1 manipulated to take the original will from the file of the District Magistrate Ajmer. The decree obtained by Kishan Singh was stated not to be collusive. 4. On these pleadings the Senior Civil Judge Ajmer framed as many as seven issues in the suit. The suit was later on transferred to the Court of District Judge Ajmer and was decided by the District Judge on November 2, 1974. The District Judge held that although unregistered sale-deed Ex.6 may not be relied upon as a proof of creation of Trust by late Srichand but it can be used for collateral purposes i.e. for the proof of possession by plaintiff No. I and defendant No. 2 as trustees for charitable purposes. The District Judge held that although unregistered sale-deed Ex.6 may not be relied upon as a proof of creation of Trust by late Srichand but it can be used for collateral purposes i.e. for the proof of possession by plaintiff No. I and defendant No. 2 as trustees for charitable purposes. It was also held that in the facts and surrounding circumstances of the case it was established that the trust created by late Seth Srichand was acted upon and that Seth Srichand had divested himself from the ownership of the suit property and the property had been used as Dharamshala which was a public property. It appears from the judgment of the District Judge that the plaintiffs did not attack the decree obtained by Kishan Singh against Paras Mal as collusive and. therefore issue No. 2 was decided against the plaintiffs. With regard to the will Ex. 4 alleged to have been executed by Seth Srichand in favour of Paras Mal on October 27, 1949 it was held that the same was not proved and as a matter of fact Seth Sri Chand did not execute any will on October 27, 1949 and did not bequeath the suit property to Paras Mal, On the basis of findings on issue No. 1 that the suit property was a public Trust property created for charitable purposes the District Judge by her decree dated November 2, 1974 decreed the suit of the plaintiffs in its entirety. Paras Mal. defendant No. 2 has filed the present first appeal in this Court. It may be mentioned that Paras Mal appellant and Kishan Singh respondent No. 3 died during he pendency of this appeal and Chetan Mal and six others were substituted as legal representatives of Paras Mal and Smt Chand Kanwar and two others were substituted as legal representatives of Kishan Singh defendant No. 1. 5. The learned counsel for the appellants strenuously urged that the document Ex. 6. by which the public trust is stated to be created by late Seth Srichand is ineffective to create a public trust for charitable purposes as the same was compulsorily registerable under Section 17 of the Indian Registration Act and therefore the trial Court was wrong in holding that the charitable public trust was created by late Seth Srichand divesting himself of tie suit property and vesting the same in the alleged trustees. He urged that the contents of Ex. 6 could not be used in support of the finding that a public trust was created. The learned counsel also urged that the course of conduct of the parties would also go to show that the suit property was never used as a trust property for charitable purposes and was treated as the personal property of plaintiff No. 1 as well as by Paras Mal, This property was never managed by the trustees. It was therefore contended that the course of conduct of the parties as well as the future actions do not support the dedication of the suit property for public charitable trust by late Seth Srichand. The learned counsel for the appellants relied on the will alleged to have been executed by late Seth Srichand in favour of Paras Mal on October 27, 1949. It was argued that the original .ill was produced before the District Magistrate but it was lost in his office and its attested copy is Ex.B.79 which has been produced by Paras Mal and has been proved by Shri B.D Jalan Advocate and therefore the trial Court was wrong in holding that the execution of the will by late Seth Srichand in favour of Paras Mal was not at all established. 6. The learned counsel for the plaintiffs on the other hand urged that the trust-deed Ex. 6 did not require registration as the trust was for charitable purposes It did not purport to transfer any property in the trustees. The trustees were only managing the property and the beneficial ownership vested in the public. It was also urged that the trust-deed was not a gift deed covered by the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act. The learned counsel also tried to make out a difference between by vesting of property and extinguishment of title or interest in the property. In any event the learned counsel for the plaintiff: urged that the user of the property during the life-time of late Seth Srichand and even after his death and even the conduct of Parasmal as well as of the plaintiff and Man Mal goes to show that the suit property had been used for the purpose of Dharamshala wherein the people used to stay and that it was not used for personal purposes. either by late Seth Srichand or by plaintiff Guman Mal or by Paras Mal. It was only at a late stage some time in the year 1963 or so, that Paras Mal intended to frustrate the objet of the public trust and made overtures to plaintiff No I in order to construct a cinema in a portion of the building. He manipulated with Kishan Singh and with an evil design a collusive decree was obtained by Kishan Singh and this property was going to be sold which led the plaintiffs to institute the present suit. As to the alleged will in favour of Paras Mal it was urged that it was clear from the record that no such will existed and Ex. B-79 was entirely a fabricated copy of the agreed will tried to be supported as a true copy of the original will entirely by the false testimony of Shri Bhagwan Das Jalan Advocate. 7. Ex. 6 is the document admittedly executed by late Seth Srichand on May 13, 1942. The document is titled as Waqfnama. It inter alia provides that Seth Srichand had purchased the property in the town of Bijai Nagar and after its purchase he had reconstructed it and certain shops were also constructed therein. Seth Srichand declared that he did not want to retain his title and ownership over this property and wanted to dedicate it. He had attained old age and therefore for the purpose of dedicating the property for charitable purposes and to divest himself from its ownership and to appoint certain persons as mutwalis or trustees he was executing the document. There was appointment of six trustees by document. The building was to be named as Seth Srichand Abani Dharmshala. It was to be used for the stay of passengers coming from outside Bijainagar for marriage purposes and on other festive occasions Sadhus and Mahatmas were also to be allowed to stay in Dharamashala. With respect to the trustees appointed it was provided that those trustees who were residents of Bijainagar and had their business shops there will manage Dharamashala by yearly rotation. After the term of one trustee was over he will hand over the charge with accounts and receipts to the other trustee taking his turn. With respect to the trustees appointed it was provided that those trustees who were residents of Bijainagar and had their business shops there will manage Dharamashala by yearly rotation. After the term of one trustee was over he will hand over the charge with accounts and receipts to the other trustee taking his turn. Seth Srichand retained with him the power to remove all or any of the trustees if they acted inconsistently with the object of the Trust. It was further provided that so long as Seth Srichand was alive the trustees would act fully on his advice. In case his advice was disobeyed Seth Srichand retained with him the power to take over the management himself. After his death this over ail control never the trustees would vest in his son-in-law Sardarmal. In case any of the trustees expired the remaining trustees would have power to take befitting member of the deceased trustee's family as trustee or any person. Seth Srichand further mentioned that he or his heirs would have no proprietory right over the property dedicated for the purpose of being used as Dharmashala. The income from the shops attached to Dharmashala would be used for its purposes. The rent-note of the shops would be executed in favour of the trustees. The trustees would frame rules with the approval of Seth Srichand. 8. On a construction of the document Ex. 6 it would appear that by this document Seth Srichand expressed his clear and unequivocal intention to dedicate the suit property for charitable purpose. The property was to be used as Dharmashala i.e. a place for temporary residence of outside persons coming to Bijainagar for performing of marriages and for stay of Sadhus and Mahatmas. Secondly by this document. Seth Srichand completely divested himself from owner- ship of the suit property. He appointed trustees and vested the property in the trustees for the purpose of its management letting out of its shops realising its rent and protecting the property. Over-all control of the trustees was retained by Seth Srichand and after his death. the over-all control was to pass over to his son-in-law Sardarmal who was also one of the trustees appointed by Ex. 6. 9. The first question for determination is whether Ex.6 required registration. Over-all control of the trustees was retained by Seth Srichand and after his death. the over-all control was to pass over to his son-in-law Sardarmal who was also one of the trustees appointed by Ex. 6. 9. The first question for determination is whether Ex.6 required registration. The learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance on a Division Bench judgment of the Rangoon High Court in (1) Daw Ein v. Daw Chan Tba (AIR 1939 Rangoon 365) . In that case the plaintiff the widow of U Pe Zerbadi Mahomedan died in 1926 sued for a declaration that a wakf. which she and U Pe's two brothers his other heirs executed in 1926 had failed. and also for her share of the property comprised in that wakf. There were three deeds relating to the wakf and all of them were unregistered. By one of the deeds one Haji Ko Dawood was appointed as arbitrator to partition the estate of U Pe leaving some two hundred acres of paddy land and jewellery worth some Rs. 14,000/- for charity. By another document the paddy lands mentioned in the first document were specified as 191.45 acres and it was stipulated that U Hpaw was to collect the rents maintain accounts. make necessary donations and to keep an account of the surplus funds. By the third document it was agreed that jewellery be sold and with the proceeds mosques school buildings and cemeteries should be built or repaired. It was held that a wakf can be created by oral declaration and dedication. But where wakf was made by deed. Section 17(1) (b) of the Registration Act demands the registration of non-testamentary instrument which purport to operate to create or extinguish any interest of the value of Rs. 100/, and upwards in immovable property and by virtue of Section 49 no document required by Section 17 to be registered shall affect any immovable property comprised therein unless it had been registered. Their Lord- ships referred to the decision in (2) Vidya Varuthi Thirtha v. Balusami Ayyar ( AIR 1922 PC 123 ) and another decision in (3) Muhammad Rustam Ali Khan v. Mushtaq Hussain ( AIR 1921 PC 105 ) and stated that as said in Vidya Varthi Thritha v. Balusami Ayyar (Supra). when a wakf is made the right of the wakf is extinguished and the ownership is transferred to the Almighty. when a wakf is made the right of the wakf is extinguished and the ownership is transferred to the Almighty. Their Lordship did not rely upon the effect of Sections 123 and 129 of the Transfer of Property Act as a wakf was not a gift but a religious trust which could have been made by oral declaration and dedication. Although a wakf could be made orally the law applicable to a wakf made in writing was held to be statute law of India and that statute law was Indian Registration Act. 10. On behalf of respondent No. 1. reliance was placed upon Full Bench decision of the Madras High Court in (4) Tangella Narasimhaswami Dharmakartha of Shri Kodanda Ramchandra Mdoorthy vs Madini Venkatalingam & others (AIR 1927 Madras 636) wherein it was held following the pronouncement of the same High Court in (5) Narasimbaswami v. Venkatalingam (AIR 1927 Madras 636 (sic) wherein it was held foll,)wing an earlier decision of the same High Court in (6) Pallayya v. Ramavadhanulu (13 MLJ 364) that dedication of property to God by a Hindu does not require any document and that property can be validly dedicated without any registered instrument. in Pallayya V. Ramavadhanulu (supra) a Division Bench of the Madras High Court had held that a declaration of trust in relation to immovable property for a public religious purpose is not governed by the Indian Trusts Act Which by S. I declares it inapplicable to religious trusts. It was also held that Section 123 of the Transfer of Property Act has no application no dedication of land to the public as the section only applied to cases when the donee is an ascertained or ascertainable person by whom or on whose behalf a gift can be accepted or refused. In the Full Bench decision their Lordships observed that there seems to be a slight verbal error in the report in Pallayya's case inasmuch as having regard to the document set out in the beginning of the report the words in judgment should be "the gift of land to the idol and dedication of the temple to the public" instead of 'dedication of the idol and land to the public." 11. This Full Court decision of the Madras High Court in Harasimhaswami V. Venkatulingam (Supra) was commented by Shri B K. Mukherjee on The Hindu Law of Religious and Charitable Trusts 1983 5th Edition at page 104-105 and it was observed:- "As you will see later the true theory of Hindu sagas is that the gift is made not to any visible image but to the invisible spirit which resides in it. An idol is a juristic person in Hindu law which is capable of holding property in the same way as a natural person and it is quite usual for a pious Hindu to execute a deed of gift or arpannama in favour of an idol. Even if it can be said that the expression -living person" in section 5 of the Transfer of Property Act does not include all kinds of juristic persons section 1 of the Registration Ac: would undoubtedly operate when the dedication is by deed and make it wholly inoperative unless it is registered (see: Bhoopatinath V. Basanta : (1936) ILR 63 Cal 1098) . xx xx xx Similarly if a settlor wants to transfer property to trustees who are to bold it for specific purposes of religion or charity the deed of settlement or trust if it relates to immovable property of the value of one hundred rupees or upwards, would require registration. The whole position therefore, depends upon the way in which the endowment is created. If the endower employs the form of gift and purports to execute a deed of gift of certain property in favour of an idol or any religious or charitable institution or if he attempts to transfer immovable property of the value of rupees one hundred or upwards to trustees in whom it is vested for the object of the trust he cannot by any means avoid the law of registration." 12. The above paragraphs clinches the whole issue. As already stated, by Ex. 6. Seth Shrichand completely extinguished his title and divested himself of the property and vested the same in the trustees to carry out the object of the Trust. The above paragraphs clinches the whole issue. As already stated, by Ex. 6. Seth Shrichand completely extinguished his title and divested himself of the property and vested the same in the trustees to carry out the object of the Trust. Such document may not be covered by Section 5 of the Indian Trust Act or by Section 123 of the Transfer of Property Act; but certainly it is covered by Section 17(l)(b) of the Indian Registration Act It is a non-testamentary instrument operating to extinguish the right title or interest of Seth Srichand in the suit property and it created the legal right in the trustees to hold it and manage it for the ultimate benefit of the beneficiaries namely the pubic. The document did require registration and as the same was unregistered on account of Section 49 of the Registration Act it could not affect any immovable property comprised therein and could not be received as evidence of any transaction affecting such property. Clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 17 is one of the most important clauses of Section 17. If a non-testamentary document is held to purport or operate to create assign limit or extinguish rights in immovable property of the value of Rs. 100/- or upwards it is compulsorily registrable under this clause. The document Ex. 6 by its clear words implied of definite change of legal relation of the property by expression of a definite intention embodied in the document.. 13. Learned counsel for respondent No. 1 however urged that under the provisions of Section 49 of the Indian Registration Act though Ex. 6 by itself does not affect any immovable property comprised in it and cannot be received as evidence of any transaction affecting such property it can be received as evidence of any collateral transaction not required to be effected by registered instrument. There are authorities for the proposition that proof as to the nature and character of a person's possession is really proof of a transaction showing in what character a person has come upon the laud. Such a transaction is really a collateral one which by itself does not required to be effected by a registered-deed. An unregistered document is therefore held to be admissible as evidence of the nature or character of a person's possession Ex. Such a transaction is really a collateral one which by itself does not required to be effected by a registered-deed. An unregistered document is therefore held to be admissible as evidence of the nature or character of a person's possession Ex. 6 itself can be looked for a limited purpose of saying that the property in question came in possession of the persons named therein including Guman Mal with the permission of late Seth Srichand. However that alone is not sufficient to establish the divesting of ownership of late Seth Srichand and its dedication for charitable purposes. As already stated that dedication to. charity need not necessarily be made by an instrument. in writing. It can be orally made and inferred from conduct. In (7) M. Dasaratharami Reddi v. Subha Rao ( AIR 1957 SC 797 ) . it was held that dedication to charity need not necessarily be by instrument or grant. It can be established by cogent and satisfactory evidence of conduct of the parties and user of the property which show the extinction of the private secular character of the property and its complete dedication to chant. In (8) Tilkayat Shri Govindlalji Maharaj Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. ( AIR 1963 SC 1638 his Lordship Gajendragadkar J. at page 166 of the reported judgment in para 68 observed that a dedication of private property to a charity need not he made by a writing; it can be made orally or even can be inferred from conduct. What is necessary is that the purpose should be clearly specified and the property intended for the purpose of endowment should be set apart as dedicated for that purpose and it is necessary that the donor should divest himself of the property and the evidence of divesting need be contemporaneous. it has already been observed that Ex. 6 can be looked into for collateral purposes. The possession and management of the property came into the bands of six persons named the rein including Sardarmal son-in-law of late Seth Srichand. This dedication took place in S. Y. 1998 on Miti First Jeth Badi 13 i. e. May 13, 1982. There are admitted and undisputed registers Article 7 to Article 10. Article 9 is the starting register from Feb. 6, 1952 to September 9, 1952. This dedication took place in S. Y. 1998 on Miti First Jeth Badi 13 i. e. May 13, 1982. There are admitted and undisputed registers Article 7 to Article 10. Article 9 is the starting register from Feb. 6, 1952 to September 9, 1952. It contains regular entries of the persons who stayed in the Dharamashala in its various rooms for a day or two and who came from outside to Bijainagar. The duration of the stay place from where the passengers visited and their full addresses with their signatures find place in the register. Regular entries were made in the register with respect to passengers who stayed in it tight upto the year 1963 and even upto 1964. The heading is also given in the printed register as Shri Abani Jain Dharamashala Bijainagar established by Srichand Abani in S. Y. 1998. The entries in these registers Articles 7 to 10 clearly go to show that this property was right from the year 1942 continuously used as a Dharamashala for more than 12 to 13 years. It was only in the 1963 that that Parasmal, younger son of Sardar Mal. thought of frustrating the object of the Trust. He had no regards for those charitable intentions of his maternal grand- father which even his father preserved. He thought of entering into commercial ventures to use this place for construction of cinema and for that purpose he started creating and adopting all sorts of manipulations. The first manipulation that he did, was that he prepared a rubber-stamp and in the printed registers Articles 7 to 10. he put the rubber stamp showing himself alone as proprietor of the Dharamashala and soon thereafter he renamed it as Shri Abani Jain Vishram Grab Bijainagar showing himself as proprietor in the registers Articles 7 to 10 clearly indicate that the property was divested by late Seth Srichand for charitable purposes and he dedicated the same for those purposes and the property was used for a long time continuously for accommodating passengers who came to Bijainagar from outside and stayed there for 1, 2 or 3 days. 14. Another important document is Ex. 13 which is the will executed by Sardarmal son-in-law of late Seth Srichand and father of Guman Mal and Paras Mal. 14. Another important document is Ex. 13 which is the will executed by Sardarmal son-in-law of late Seth Srichand and father of Guman Mal and Paras Mal. He was the best person who knew about the dedication of this property by his father-in-law for charitable purposes and therefore in the will which he made on 22nd July, 1959 he mentioned in para 2 that his father-in-law late Seth Srichand had established a Dharamashala in S.Y. 1998 The Dharamashala had started by a document alleged to have been executed on May 13, 1942 and he along with five others were appointed as trustees. Sardarmal further mentioned that late Seth Srichand controlled the management of the Dharamashala till his death in the year 1950 i.e. S.Y. 2007 and thereafter Sardarmal continued to manage the Dharmashala in which passengers used to stay and the Dharmashala was continuing with its object. This is clear admission of father of Paras Mal who was also a trustee rather a managing trustee of the Dharamshala. Sardarmal also mentioned in Ex. 13 that he had two sons named Guman Mal & Paras Mal. While Guman Mal was obedient and worthy of trust. Paras Mal was unworthy of it and he nominated his elder on Guman Mal to manage the Dharamashala. This further shows continuity of this property for charitable purpose by the managing trustee Sardarmal and he had nominated Guman Mal as trustee after his death. Then there are receipts Ex.7 Ex.8 Ex. 14 and Ex. 1 which had been issued to the tenants living in the shops attached to the Dharmashala and the receipts were issued in the name of Shri Abani Jain Dharmashala Bijainagar established by late Seth Srichand. These receipts are of the year 1963, Sardarmal got rent-notes executed as managing trustee of the Dharamashala. Then in the year 1963 Paras Mal thought that there were favourable stars in his favour in as much as Rao Narain Singh Masuda happened to be a Minister in Rajasthan. Paras Mal was able to obtain recommendatory letter from Rao Narain Singh Masuda addressed to the Collector Shri Mohan Mukherjee of Ajmer District. Copy of this letter is Ex. 33 on the record. In this letter Rao Narain Singh Masuda said that Paras Mal Jain of Beawar owned a Dharamashala constructed by his grand-father in Bijainagar. Paras Mal was able to obtain recommendatory letter from Rao Narain Singh Masuda addressed to the Collector Shri Mohan Mukherjee of Ajmer District. Copy of this letter is Ex. 33 on the record. In this letter Rao Narain Singh Masuda said that Paras Mal Jain of Beawar owned a Dharamashala constructed by his grand-father in Bijainagar. He applied for a cinema building in front of it the income of which he intends to devotes towards the charitable purpose pertaining to the Dharamashala and he deserved every favourable consideration. Here started the nuisance by Paras Mal. Still charitable purpose was kept in view along with cinema. Immediately there was protest from the residents of Bijainagar by an application to the Sarpanch Panchayat Bijainagar Ex.30, in which it was mentioned by the residents that Abani Jain Dharamashala was being used for stay of passengers for the last 24 years and Paras Mal was illegally going to construct a cinema and that he should be prevented from doing so. Man Mal one of the four trustees was signatory to Ex. 30, Ultimately the recommendations of Rao Narain Singh Masuda failed to have their effect upon the Collector and he rejected the application for construction of Cinema. There are also bills Ex. 31 and Ex. 32 issue t by M/s. Kishan Lal Ratan Lal Chhajed for the material supplied for repairs and maintenance of Dharamashala. Then there is one more crucial letter Ex D.1 which was written by Paras Mal himself to his elder brother Guman Mal. In this letter Paras Mal in his zeal to make this property as his personal property and to construct cinema wrote to his elder brother Guman Mal that the Dharamashala be closed and only outside Kotari may be allowed for the stay of passengers. Ex.D.I rally goes to show that the Dharamashala was continue right upto the date the time Ex.D. 1 was written by Paras Mal himself on July 3, 1963. 15. Paras Mal did not stop here. When he found that there were registers showing the continuance of the Dharamashala and also other documents which may affect his claim of proprietorship to this property. he went to the length of fabricating a will purported to have been executed in favour by his maternal grand- father late Seth Srichand. 15. Paras Mal did not stop here. When he found that there were registers showing the continuance of the Dharamashala and also other documents which may affect his claim of proprietorship to this property. he went to the length of fabricating a will purported to have been executed in favour by his maternal grand- father late Seth Srichand. He could not produce that alleged original will because that would have completely exposed him and would have made him guilty of perjury. He therefore. devised a way. He found in Shri Bhagwan Das Jalan a friend to whom he had also engaged his counsel in one or two criminal cases. He got typed Ex.B 79 purported to be a copy of the will alleged to have been executed by late Seth Srichand on October 27, 1949 and got this verified as true copy from Shri Bhagwan Das DW/1/2 who was then working. as Oath Commissioner also at Beawar. Shri Bhagwan Das Jalan only states that he had made the endorsement of true copy on Ex. B/79 which was true copy of the original produced before him. There is no proof that the original bore the signatures of late Seth Srichand. The document was forged to the extent that it was said that there was no scribe or attesting witness alive to prove the signatures- of late Seth Srichand. To explain as to where the original will had gone a false version was put forward that the original had been delivered to the Collector and District Magistrate Ajmer when he came to inspect the site in connection with the permission sought by Paras Mal to construct a cinema and the original was lost in the file of the Collector. A letter Ex. B-79 was produced which is 'aid to have been received by Paras Mal from the office of the Collector Ajmer in which it was stated that there was no original will in the office of the Collectorate. This letter does not prove that the original will was given to the Collector Ajmer. It was only a devise by Paras Mal to show that there was an original will which was lost in the Collectorate and therefore he has to give its true copy Ex. B-79 as secondary evidence and for that he used Shri Bhagwan Das Jalan Advocate Beawar. It was only a devise by Paras Mal to show that there was an original will which was lost in the Collectorate and therefore he has to give its true copy Ex. B-79 as secondary evidence and for that he used Shri Bhagwan Das Jalan Advocate Beawar. As already stated there is none to prove that there was any original will bearing the signatures of late Seth Srichand. However when a person makes attempt to pro- duce a false and fabricated documenthe is bound to commit some error some where. One fact alone exposes that Ex. B-79 is a false and fabricated document. It is very pertinent to note that in Ex. B-79 the figures -149" in the date 27th Oct. 1949 has been corrected by ink so as to read as 1949. The figures "49" have been corrected by ink and have been initialled by the person making the correction. This must have been done obviously before 1st October, 1954 when Bhagwan Das Jalan had attested it as true copy. If we look to the written statement filed by Paras Mal in this suit therefore the trial court i. e. Senior Civil Judge. Ajmer on February 11, 1967 it will be noticed that in para 15 of the written statement also there is similar correction in the year of the alleged will and there also the figures 149" have been corrected by ink and the correction initialled. Ink and the initials are the same of the correction in the written statement and the correction in Ex. B-79. It clearly shows that the year typed in copy Ex. B-79 did not suit Paras Mal's purpose and therefore when he filed written statement in the case he got corrected the year both in the written statement and in Ex. B-79 on the same date from the same ink and by the same person This alone is sufficient to hold that Ex. B-79 is false and fabricated document and Paras Mal has perjured in the case. 16. For the rest of the matters the District Judge has amply dealt with that there was dedication and from the conduct of the parties and user of the property it is sufficiently established that the public charitable trust was created by late Seth Srichand and the suit property was public trust property. 16. For the rest of the matters the District Judge has amply dealt with that there was dedication and from the conduct of the parties and user of the property it is sufficiently established that the public charitable trust was created by late Seth Srichand and the suit property was public trust property. It was therefore not liable to be sold in execution of the award decree obtained by Kishan Singh against Paras Mal. 17. No other point was raised. 18. The suit was rightly decreed by the District Judge Ajmer and this first appeal has no merit in it and it is hereby dismissed with costs to respondent No. 1.Appeal Dismissed with costs. *******