Judgment Heard Mr.V.J.Dixit, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant and Mr.J.S.Gavane, learned A.G.P. for Respondent No.1. 2) The trustee, being dissatisfied by the order dated 19th June, 1992 passed by learned 5th Additional District judge, Beed in Trust Application no.97/1989, pursuant to the Judgment and Order dated 31.8.1989 of Joint Charity Commissioner, Aurangabad in Revision Application No. 13/1986, has preferred the present appeal. 3) According the counsel for the appellant, registration of the trust vide Application No.257/1961 by Shri Sheshacharya Vasudevacharya Anwane, Mahasab Beed and invoking inquiry under Section 18 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 in the requisite form by itself was a mistake on the part of said Shri Sheshacharya Anwane and the Trust could not have been registered by order dated 3rd of April, 1962. Though such requisition was made, as the parent trust of the devotees is in the name of His Holiness the Swamiji of Uttaradhimath, who was the Wahivatdar of different properties situate at Rananebennur and Hirekerur talukas in Dharwar district, in Chikkodi taluka in Belgaum district; also of two villages in Pandharpur taluka in Sholapur district and consequently subject properties could not be the trust properties as defined under Section 2(13) of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 and they were Sarva Inam Private properties of the applicant-Math. 4) The application under Section 70(A) of the B.P.T. Act in the name of subject trust was moved by Yamunadas Narayan Dhabadgaonkar (present appellant), wherein the Joint Charity Commissioner, passed orders on 31.08.1989, as the Revision Petitioner felt aggrieved by the order of the Assistant Charity Commissioner, Aurangabad dated 3.4.1962. 5) There is no controversy about the registration of the trust under the name and style as "Shri Madananand Tirthashram Tatha Uttaradi Vaishnav Math and Madhav Mandir, Beed, bearing P.T.R.No.A-55(Beed) and about the status of the applicant and the respondents to be the trustees of the said trust. 6) The Assistant Charity Commissioner held that the applicant (Appellant) has caused a loss of Rs.21,374.64 ps. to the said trust. Consequently the proceedings under Sections 40 and 41 of the Act came to be initiated against the appellant. A revision came to be filed, owing to dissatisfaction of orders. 7) It is canvassed, original applicant Shri Sheshacharya Vasudevacharya Anwane has dedicated his property at the feet of his Guru Shrimant Satya Dnyantirth of Uttaradi Matha Sansthan. to the said trust. Consequently the proceedings under Sections 40 and 41 of the Act came to be initiated against the appellant. A revision came to be filed, owing to dissatisfaction of orders. 7) It is canvassed, original applicant Shri Sheshacharya Vasudevacharya Anwane has dedicated his property at the feet of his Guru Shrimant Satya Dnyantirth of Uttaradi Matha Sansthan. It being the property dedicated at the feet of Guru, it cannot be declared as a public trust. As per the wishes of Guru in Aadnya Patra, i.e. the authority given by the Guru Maharaj the Samadhi and the Math was installed in the property. Sheshacharya was supposed to administer and manage the affairs of the said trust. He made an application for registration of the trust and consequently the trust was registered. 8) It is not in dispute that Uttaradi Math is belonging to sect of Madhav Sampradaya. Their authority is commonly known as "Shrimad Vaishnav Sidhdhan Pratishthapanacharya ShrimathJagatguru Shri Madhwacharya Mul Mahasansthan Shrimat Uttaradi Mathadhish. It is not legally sustainable that the property dedicated at the feet of Guru can not be declared as trust property. That apart, the applicant himself had placed on record a copy of Aadnya Patra, i.e. Command letter, which indicates that the property was not dedicated to Guru but it was dedicated to the Math and it was accepted by UttaradiVaishnav Math. It was for better management, the owner himself moved application for registration of Trust in 1961-62. 9) The contention that the Math situated at Beed is part and parcel of the Sansthan known as Uttaradi Vaishnav Math, and Sansthan Uttaradi Vaishnav Math being not liable for registration under the provisions of B.P.T. Act, the Math situation at Beed is also not liable for registration under the provisions of B.P.T.Act, is not sustainable. The orders passed by the District Judge or of the High Court at Mysore relate to property of Math else where, it will not be applicable to the present case. 10) The property of the trust situated in Beed, the application for registration of the trust was volitionally made in the year 1962. The orders passed by the District Judge or of the High Court at Mysore relate to property of Math else where, it will not be applicable to the present case. 10) The property of the trust situated in Beed, the application for registration of the trust was volitionally made in the year 1962. It has been acted upon and then again change report was furnished by the present appellant on 7.2.1977 stating that Sheshacharya expired on 17.1.1972 Consequently, it was not open for the present appellant to contend that very registration of the trust itself could not have been done. 11) A suo motu inquiry in the Scheme Proceedings 93/1978 under Section 50-A(1) of the B.P.T. Act was initiated in which the present appellant was also party. 12) It was as per the basic application of Sheshacharya Anwane, himself a trustee including his wife were to continue as trustees till their life time and thereafter the trustees were to be nominated by the Uttaradi Math as indicated in the Order of the math (Exhibit-9). 13) The trust is obviously managed by the present appellant and consequently after issuance of a public notice and individual notices, a Scheme was formulated by the Charity Commissioner, giving names of seven trustees including the present appellant, soliciting consent statement from those nominated as trustees within fifteen days. The Draft Scheme did make provision regarding membership on payment of certain subscription. There was election procedure of the trustees, and consequently subject of selection or bringing new trustee was left with the existing trustees. The said Scheme formulated by the Joint Charity Commissioner dated 20th August, 1986 is in force. Reading the said Scheme, it can not be said, substantial rights of particular sect are snatched or tried to be trimmed. The Scheme in force is beyond any cavil to be criticized. Due care is also taken at the time of formation of the Scheme for rendering minimum regular remittances at Rs.100/- per year to Peethadhish of ShriMahanand Teerth Uttaradi Vaishana Math. That apart, arrangement is also made in clause 5(e) of the Scheme, that from present trustees one person would be a manager/trustee for requiring consent from Mathadipati of Uttaradi Math. If no such manager (Vyavasthapak) is appointed, in that event, the affairs of the trust will be managed and looked after by all the trustees. That apart, arrangement is also made in clause 5(e) of the Scheme, that from present trustees one person would be a manager/trustee for requiring consent from Mathadipati of Uttaradi Math. If no such manager (Vyavasthapak) is appointed, in that event, the affairs of the trust will be managed and looked after by all the trustees. 15) Learned Senior Counsel placed reliance to the Judgment reported in 1963 Mah.L.J. 709 (Administrator of Shringeri Math Vs. Charity Commissioner, Bombay), same was also subject of challenge at the instance of Charity Commissioner Bombay to the Hon’ble Supreme Court, reported A.I.R. 1969 SC 566. Shankaracharya requested the then Mysore Government in 1953 to take charge of the Math situated at Shringeri and all its properties because of his ill-health. Consequently, Mysore Government took over all the properties of the Math by Notification of January 12, 1953 under its management. However, after the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 came into force, for two years no application was made for registration of Nasik institution as in a previous enquiry under the Bombay Public Trusts Registration Act of 1953 these properties were held to be a private properties of Shri Shankaracharya. In the said case, His Lordships observed that the erection of the Math at Nasik and management of the property was substantially held by the main trust situated in Mysore and consequently there was no need and occasion to have separate registration of the trust invoking the provisions of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950. 16) To revert back to the facts of the present case, since inception it is not put forward that at any time, from 1961-62 any continuation or any assistance in the form of finance or otherwise, was solicited and provided by the main Math situated in Karnataka. It was purely a registration owing to the desire of then applicants/owners of property to subject to the provisions of Bombay Public Trusts Act. 17) Learned Counsel could not establish that the Math in Karnataka was itself registered or not, if it was not registered then seeking non-registration or cancellation of the registration of the present trust will again be not sustainable. 18) Taking survey of all these facts, there is no merit in the First Appeal, it is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.