ORDER 1. This petition is filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 15.1.2004 passed by the Registrar, Public Trusts, Gwalior in Case No. 4/2001-2002 B-113/2 whereby application filed by respondents 2 to 8 under section 26 of the M.P. Public Trusts Act, 1951 is dismissed. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner which is a public trust has filed an application for registration of the public trust vide Annexure P1. Registrar, Public Trust on the basis of this application invited objection from public at large by issuing a notification Annexure P-2. Subsequently, after enquiry under section of the M.P. Public Trusts Act (hereinafter, referred to as the' Act') the Registrar has given his findings in favour of the present petitioner and held that the temple in question belongs to Shakyawar Kori Samaj, Gwalior and it should be registered. One Prem Narain who was a pujari in the temple owned by the petitioner trust filed a Suit No.76-A/85 before the District Judge, Gwalior alleging that the temple in question is his ancestral property and the temple is his personal property and therefore, it cannot be registered as a property of the public trust. 3. In the meantime, respondents 2 to 8 had filed an application under section 26 of the Act before the Registrar, Public Trusts, alleging that the trust is mismanaged by the trustees. This application is dismissed by the Registrar, Public Trusts, by the impugned order dated 15.1.2004 holding that the trust is not registered as per section 7 (2) of the Act and therefore, application under section 26 of the Act is not maintainable. 4. Present petitioner has filed this petition for a limited prayer that the Registrar, Public Trusts be directed to register the trust under section'7 of the Act. According to the counsel for the petitioner, once the Registrar has given his finding that the property should be registered as public trust, it was the duty of the Registrar to make entry in the register as per section 7 of the Act. For this purpose, counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a judgment of the apex Court in the case of Hasan Nurani v. S.M. Ismail, Assistant Charity Commissioner, Nagpur and others [1967 JLJ 526]. In para 7 of this judgment, the apex Court has laid down as under: "..... For this purpose, counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a judgment of the apex Court in the case of Hasan Nurani v. S.M. Ismail, Assistant Charity Commissioner, Nagpur and others [1967 JLJ 526]. In para 7 of this judgment, the apex Court has laid down as under: "..... Such a finding may either be that the trust is a public trust or it is not. Section 7 (1) enjoins upon him to cause entries to be made in the register "in accordance with the findings recorded by him under section 6", and he is to publish the entries when made in the register. The register prescribed no doubt is a register of a public trusts. If the finding of the Registrar is that a particular trust is not a public trust, does he not have to make an entry of his finding in the register or has he to make an entry in that register only when his finding is a positive one that the trust is a public trust? It will be noticed that there is nothing in section 7 (1) to show that he is required to make an entry only if the finding is in the affirmative...." From perusal of the aforesaid judgment, it is clear that it is the statutory duty of the Registrar, Public Trusts, to make an entry in accordance with the findings arrived at by him in the enquiry under section 5 of the Act. 5. In the present case, though there is a finding in favour of the present petitioner, the Registrar, Public Trusts has not made any entry under section 7 of the Act. Hence, Shri K.L. Mangal, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Registrar, Public Trusts, may be directed to make entry as per section 7 of the Act. 6. In reply, Shri Jai Prakash Shrivastava, the learned counsel for the respondents 2 to 8 has submitted that entry cannot be made after a lapse of more than 24 years. According to him, order in the enquiry was passed on 8.6.1982 and if entries are made under section 7, then the person objecting the registration of the trust cannot prefer objections as most of them might not have been alive now. According to him, order in the enquiry was passed on 8.6.1982 and if entries are made under section 7, then the person objecting the registration of the trust cannot prefer objections as most of them might not have been alive now. He has also submitted that the limitation for filing a suit under section 8 of the Act has already expired, hence, if the Registrar is directed to register the trust, the respondents cannot challenge the findings under section 8 of the Act as their limitation for filing the suit has already expired. He has also submitted that in the meantime, another trust is registered by order Annexure R-l and, therefore, present trust cannot be registered. 7. After hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of paragraph 7 of the judgment of the apex Court in the case of Hasan Nurani (supra), I find that it is the mandatory duty of the Registrar, Public Trusts to make entries in the register on the basis of the findings arrived at by him in the enquiry under section of the Act. Omission on the part of the Registrar, Public Trust to make entries in the register cannot defeat the rights of the present petitioner which it has accrued in the enquiry. Act of the Registrar to make entry is merely a ministerial procedure and the Registrar has no option but to register his findings in accordance with the findings arrived at by him in the enquiry under section 5 of the Act. In such circumstances, the petitioner's right cannot be defeated merely by not making entry in the register. 8. As regards grievance of the respondents is concerned, making entry in the register by itself will not cause any prejudice to the respondents. The question of hearing at the stage of section 7 of the Act is not contemplated under the Act as the Registrar is bound to make entries in accordance with the findings recorded by him in an enquiry under section 5 of the Act. Moreover, the apex Court in the case of Hasan Nurani (supra) itself has held that the limitation for filing a suit under section 8 will start running only after the entry is made in the register and published. Moreover, the apex Court in the case of Hasan Nurani (supra) itself has held that the limitation for filing a suit under section 8 will start running only after the entry is made in the register and published. In such circumstances, the respondents have a remedy of filing a suit within six months after the entry challenging the findings of the Registrar and therefore, no prejudice will be caused to them. 9. Now the question is as to the effect of registration of two public trusts in respect of the same property. The apex Court in the case of Abdul Karim Khan v. Municipal Committee, Raipur [1965 JLJ 1112 = AIR 1965 SC 1744 ] has held that a person who is claiming interest adverse to the public trust is not required to file a suit under section 8 (1) of the act. A person disputing the existence of the trust can file objections under section 5 (2) and the suit under section 8 (1). But where a person claims that al particular property is not owned by the trust, then he is claiming interest adverse to the public trust and therefore, he can file a suit for declaration and title. In view of this matter, trust which is aggrieved by inclusion of the property in another trust is not challenging the existence of other trust, but is challenging the rights in the property adverse to the other trust and therefore, it has right to file a suit for declaration and title and other reliefs. 10. In view of the above, this petition stands allowed. Registrar, Public Trust is directed to make entries as provided in section 7 of the Act and register the findings recorded by him under section of the Act and if any party, so chooses, may file a suit under section 8 of the Act challenging the said entry within six months from the date of registration of entries and its publication on the notice board of the office of Public Trust. 11. This petition stands allowed with no order as to costs.