JUDGMENT The short question which arises in this appeal is as to whether an institution which vests in the State under the Qawayad Muafidaran Jujbe Arazi Wa Nakdi Samvat, 1991 (Riyast Gwalior) can be registered under the M.P. Public Trusts Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to the Act). The facts in details need not be noticed. However, the findings which have been recorded by the trial Court in paras 18, 19 and 20 of the judgment be noticed : (i) that, there is an institution by the name of Mandir Shri Nagaji. One Leela Dhar was managing its affairs. He was given the sanad Ex. P/6; (ii) that in the list of muafi holders, the name of Narayan Das Guru Haridas was mentioned at page No. 166; (iii) in para 19, a categoric finding was recorded that the ownership of the temple of this religious place vests in the State Government and the maufi holder had only a right to act as a pujari; (iv) that the plaintiff is not the owner of the land and he is simply a pujari and that ownership vest in the State Government; As indicated above, these are the findings recorded in paras 18, 19 and 20 of the judgment of the trial Court. These findings have been affirmed by the first appellate Court. If this be the position, then the question would arise as to whether such an institution could be registered under the Act of 1951. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant has argued that this Act would not apply to those institutions which are exempted under section 36. This section 36 (1) (a) reads as under : "36. Exemption -- (1) Nothing contained in this Act shall apply to -- (a) a public trust administered by any agency acting under the control of the State or by any local authority;". A bare reading of the aforementioned provision indicates that a public trust under the control of the State or any local authority is exempt from the provisions of 1951 Act. In the present case, the findings recorded by the Courts below are that the institution in question vests in the State Government and it was being looked after by a pujari. If this be the position then, the institution in question would be exempt and it could not be registered under the aforementioned Act. In the present case, the findings recorded by the Courts below are that the institution in question vests in the State Government and it was being looked after by a pujari. If this be the position then, the institution in question would be exempt and it could not be registered under the aforementioned Act. In somewhat similar circumstances in State Bank of Indore v. Property Tax Officer [1981 (11) MPWN Note 125], it was observed that a public trust managed by Government is exempt under section 36 and it is not necessary to get it registered before filing of civil suit. Though, the above case, as indicated above, dealt with a different proposition yet on a bare reading of section 36 (1) (a) (c) of the Act the conclusion is inevitable that an institution which vests in the State and is looked after by a pujari who is appointed by the Government, then, there is no question to get the same registered. This appeal is accordingly allowed. The registration of the institution under the aforementioned Act would be of no consequence. It is, however, made clear that the Collecter of the District would be within its rights to see that the institution is properly administered. Copy of this judgment be sent to the Collector, Morena and also to the Commissioner of Aukaf Department at Gwalior.