Judgment N.K.Mody (1) APPELLANTS by Mr. Sandeep Kochatta, Advocate. Respondents by Mr. Seema Sharma, Advocate. This appeal is admitted for final hearing on the following substantial question of law :? "Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, learned Courts below committed error in dismissing the suit filed by the appellants?" With the consent of parties, arguments heard finally. Being aggrieved by the judgment dated 25-1-2005 passed by I Additional Sessions Judge, Badwani in Civil Appeal No. 17-A/02 whereby the judgment dated 7-5-2002 passed by Civil Judge, Class-I, Anjad in Civil Suit No. 77-A/98 whereby the suit filed by the appellants was dismissed, was maintained, the present appeal has been filed. (2) SHORT facts of the case are that the appellants filed a suit on 7-10-1996 for declaration and permanent injunction alleging that the appellant No. 1 is Pujari of Shri Ram Mandir, situated at village Anjad. It was alleged that the land bearing Survey Nos. 340 and 342 measuring 21.33 acre in field No. 174 situated at village Anjad was allotted to one Bhagwandas s/o Keshavdas ancestor of appellants for performing the Puja of the said temple. It was alleged that the land was allotted to the ancestor of the appellants in lieu of services being rendered to the temple as Pujari. It was alleged that since then the ancestor of the appellants and thereafter the appellants are in occupation of the land and are cultivating the same. It was alleged that respondent No. 1 upon the application filed under section 5(2) of Public Trust Act vide order dated 20-6-1995 passed an order regarding registration of trust illegally. Further case of appellants was that earlier also appellants filed suit in the Court of Civil Judge, Class-II, Anjad which was numbered as 33-A/94 in which decree was passed in favour of appellants on 21-12-1995, in which State was also party. In the suit it was prayed that the proceedings initiated for registration of trust be declared as illegal and void and injunction be granted against the respondents not to dispossesses the appellants. The suit was contested by the respondents by filing written statement, wherein allegations made in the plaint were denied. It was prayed that the suit filed by the appellants be dismissed. The suit was contested by the respondents by filing written statement, wherein allegations made in the plaint were denied. It was prayed that the suit filed by the appellants be dismissed. Along with the suit an application was filed by the appellants for grant of temporary injunction, which was dismissed by the learned trial Court vide order dated 30-1-1997, against which Miscellaneous Appeal was filed by the appellants which was numbered as M. A. No. 8/97 and was allowed vide order dated 29-6-1999 whereby the order dated 30-1-1997 passed by the learned trial Court was set aside and the respondents were restrained not to disturb in the possession of the appellant till disposal of the suit. After framing of issues and recording of evidence, suit filed by the appellants was dismissed, against which an appeal was filed, which was also dismissed, hence this appeal. (3) MR. Sandeep Kochatta, learned counsel for the appellants argued at length and submits that the impugned judgments passed by the learned Courts below are illegal, incorrect and deserves to be set aside. It is submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, learned Courts below committed error in not holding that the appellants are the owner of the suit property. It is submitted that the learned Courts below committed error in not taking into consideration the documents Ex.P/1 and Ex.P/2, which goes to show the land in question was allotted to the ancestors of the appellants. It is submitted that the document Ex.P/3 is the judgment of Civil Court which has attained finality, wherein appellants were found in possession of the suit property. It is submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case appeal filed by the appellants be allowed and the impugned judgment passed by the learned Courts below be set aside. (4) MS. Seema Sharma, learned counsel for State/respondents submits that after due appreciation of evidence learned Courts below have dismissed the suit filed by the appellants, which requires no interference. It is submitted that in the suit itself appellants have not prayed for declaration that the appellants be declared as Bhumiswami of the land. It is submitted that from the documentary evidence produced by the appellants it is amply proved that the land was allotted by the erstwhile ruler of Badwani State to the temple and not to the appellants. It is submitted that in the suit itself appellants have not prayed for declaration that the appellants be declared as Bhumiswami of the land. It is submitted that from the documentary evidence produced by the appellants it is amply proved that the land was allotted by the erstwhile ruler of Badwani State to the temple and not to the appellants. It is submitted that since there were complaints against the appellants who are Pujaris, therefore, while rejecting the application filed by one Dhansingh, Registrar Public Trust has rightly passed the order. It is submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case appeal filed by the appellants be dismissed. The suit was filed by the appellants on 7-10-1996. Along with the suit documents which have been filed are Ex.P/1 which is Patta Bandobast for the year 1908-09 in favour of Shri Ramchandra Ji Mandir and the name of agriculturist is mentioned as Bhagwandas s/o Keshavdas Bairagi. Ex.P/2 is the revenue record for the year 1907-08, wherein nature of the land is mentioned as Mali Devsthan and in column No. 10 name of occupier is mentioned as Bhagwandas. Except these two documents there is nothing on record to demonstrate the status of the appellants from 1908-09 to 1995-96 when the suit was filed. Ex.P/3 and Ex.P/4 are the judgment dated 31-12-1995 in favour of appellants in Civil Suit No. 33-A/94 wherein decree has been passed against number of persons including one Dhansingh, who filed the application for registration of trust and also the State Government wherein the decree was passed against private defendants to the effect that the private defendants should not interfere into the possession of the appellants. After the judgment dated 21-12- 1995 an application was filed by one Dhansingh who was one of the defendant for registration of trust upon which notices were issued and objections were invited. Vide order dated 20-6-1995 application filed for registration of trust was dismissed but at the same time it was directed that trust be constituted for which name of trustees were also mentioned in the said order which is Ex.P/12. In compliance of the order Ex.P/12 Tahsildar, Badwani prepared the application Ex.P/10 and submitted for registration on 12-8-1996, immediately thereafter the present suit has been filed. In compliance of the order Ex.P/12 Tahsildar, Badwani prepared the application Ex.P/10 and submitted for registration on 12-8-1996, immediately thereafter the present suit has been filed. (5) FROM perusal of the record it is evident that while entertaining the application filed by Dhansingh, public notice was issued in form No. IV as per Rule 5(1) of M. P. Public Trust Rules, 1962. The application was dismissed vide order dated 20-6-1995 but at the same time certain directions were given for consideration of public trust and in compliance of that the application Ex.P/10 was submitted by Tehsildar. Since the application Ex.P/10 as filed by Tahsildar in compliance of the order Ex.P/12 passed by Registrar, Public Trust in exercise of his own motion, therefore upon the application Ex.P/10 notice has yet to be issued under Form-V as per Rule 5(1) of M. P. Public Trust Rules, 1962. (6) IN the matter of Rajkumari wd/o Chhotelal vs. State of M. P., 1993 MPLJ 465 this Court has held that the proceedings relating to registration of temple as public trust pending before Registrar of Public Trust, Civil Suit for declaration and injunction alleging that the temple was private property, the plaintiff's suit is premature. In the present case since no notice was issued under Form-V as per Rule 5(1) of M. P. Public Trust Rules, 1962 and the objections have yet to be filed by the petitioners after the notices, the filing of the suit itself was premature. In the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that no illegality have been committed by the learned Court below in dismissing the suit filed by the appellants. In view of this, appeal filed by the appellants have no merits and is hereby dismissed with a direction to the Registrar, Public Trust, Badwani who is respondent No. 1 herein to consider the application filed by Tahsildar, Badwani Ex.P/10 after issuing notices in Form No. V as per Rule 5(1) of M. P. Public Trust Rules, 1962 and also after hearing the objections, if any, filed by the appellants, in accordance with law. In case any adverse order is passed by the Registrar, Public Trust, Badwani, appellants shall be at liberty to challenge the same in accordance with law. (7) WITH the aforesaid observations, appeal stands disposed of. Appeal dismissed.