JUDGMENT Alok Aradhe, J. 1. This appeal has been preferred by the Plaintiffs which arises out of suit for permanent injunction. This Court vide order dated 23-6-1993 had formulated the following substantial questions of law: (1) Whether the grant/sanad (Ex.P/1) conferred exclusive title in favour of Niti Vallabh together with exclusive right of worship? (2) Whether the Plaintiffs became Bhumiswami of the property in dispute after coming into force of M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959? (3) Whether the finding that the property in dispute is a trust property is not based on any pleadings or evidence on record? (4) Whether the courts below acted within their jurisdiction to direct the Plaintiffs to make an application under Section 4 of the M.P. Public Trusts Act? (5) Whether the prior agreement of worship created any right in the property in dispute in favour of the Defendants/Respondents and against the Plaintiffs? 2. Facts giving rise to filing of the appeal are that on land admeasuring 2.29 acres a Ganesh Temple is situate in city of Sehore. In respect of the land on which the temple is situate and the adjoining lands, erstwhile Nawab had granted a Sanad (Exhibit-P-1) dated 5-8-1945 in favour of the original Plaintiff so that he can perform pooja in the temple and can maintain himself as well as manage the affairs of the temple from the income of the adjoining lands. Pursuant to the aforesaid grant, name of original Plaintiff was entered in the revenue records as 'Maufidar'. However, Defendants started interfering with the possession of the Plaintiffs. Accordingly, in the suit relief of permanent injunction was sought. 3. Defendant No. 1(b) i.e. daughter of Gopal Das, admitted the claim of the Plaintiff. However, Defendants No. 1 (a) & Defendant No. 2 contested the claim of the Plaintiffs. In the written statement filed by them it was, inter alia, pleaded that one Chhoteram was pujari of temple in question which was built 300-400 years ago. After his death, one Hemraj and Krishnanand used to perform pooja in the temple. Hemraj had no son, therefore, during his lifetime he handed over the management of the temple to Kanhaiyalal and original Defendant No. 1 (Gopal Prasad) alternatively for one year each. After his death, one Hemraj and Krishnanand used to perform pooja in the temple. Hemraj had no son, therefore, during his lifetime he handed over the management of the temple to Kanhaiyalal and original Defendant No. 1 (Gopal Prasad) alternatively for one year each. Hemraj executed a registered gift deed in favour of original Defendant No. 1 by which management of the temple and possession of the adjoining land was handed over to Defendant No. 1. Thereafter, Kanhaiyalal and Gopal Prasad perform pooja every alternate year. Kanhaiyalal as well as Gopal Prasad had no son. Gopal Prasad, therefore, adopted Defendant No. 2, namely, his daughter's son vide adoption deed 13-9-1968. The original Plaintiff and Defendant No. 2 are entitled to perform pooja every alternate year. 4. The trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 16-1-1986 decreed the suit of the Plaintiffs. It was held that in view of Exhibit-P-1 i.e. the 'Sanad', the Plaintiff alone has the authority to manage the affairs of the temple and to manage the adjoining lands. Original Plaintiff had handed over the work of performing pooja to Defendant No. 1 on account of his illness. Thus, no right accrued in his favour. The land belongs to the temple and the temple is a public trust. The trial Court further directed the Plaintiffs to file an application under Section 4 of the M.P. Public Trust Act for getting the Trust registered as public trust. Accordingly, the suit was decreed. 5. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the trial Court the Plaintiffs as well as Defendants preferred appeals, which were registered as Civil Appeal No. 4-A/86 and 3-A/86 respectively. The aforesaid appeals were decided by the appellate court by a common judgment dated 13-7-1992. It was held that admittedly Nawab of Bhopal had issued a 'Sanad' (Ex.P-1) in favour of original Plaintiff. Since 1945 the original Plaintiff's name was recorded in the revenue records. On the basis of Ex.D-1 i.e. registered 'Hibanama' dated 14-11-1911 and D-2, it was held that prior to 1911, the affairs of the temple were managed by the two branches of the family, namely, Kanhaiyalal and Gopal Prasad. In 1911 the work of performance of pooja was handed over to Gopal Prasad, original Defendant No. 1, which has been admitted by Plaintiff in para 12 of his deposition. In 1911 the work of performance of pooja was handed over to Gopal Prasad, original Defendant No. 1, which has been admitted by Plaintiff in para 12 of his deposition. It was further held that the deceased Defendant vide Ex.D-7 dated 13-9-1968 i.e. the registered gift deed conveyed his right to Defendant No. 2. Thus, after the death of Gopal Prasad also the Plaintiffs as well as Defendant No. 2 had the right to perform pooja every alternate year. It was further held that temple in question is a public temple and trial Court has rightly directed the Plaintiffs to move an application for its registration under M.P. Public Trusts Act, 1951. 6. Against decree passed in Civil Appeal No. 4A of 1986 the Plaintiff preferred second appeal namely S.A. No. 567/1992, in which the direction issued by the trial Court to the Plaintiffs to make an application under Section 4 of the M.P. Public Trust Act, 1951, was assailed. The said appeal was dismissed by vide order dated 23-6-1993 which reads as under: Since the question of holding Pooja in the temple is purely a finding of fact which is not open to challenge in this second appeal and no substantial question of law is involved in the matter, the appeal does not merit admission. It is dismissed summarily. Against the decree passed in Civil Appeal No. 3A/1986, the instant appeal has been preferred, which was admitted on 23-6-1993, i.e. the same day on which other second appeal, namely, Second Appeal No. 567/1992 was dismissed. 7. Learned senior counsel for the Appellant contended that from perusal of Ex.P/1, it is graphically clear that lands were granted by erstwhile Nawab to original Plaintiff Neti Vallabh. Since, Neti Vallabh was an occupant as defined under Section 2(15) of Bhopal State Land Revenue Act, 1932, on commencement of M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 by operation of Section 158(c), the original Plaintiff became the Bhumiswami of suit lands. It was also submitted that all prior agreements with regard to worship stood superseded on execution of ExP/1 dated 5-8-1945. It was further submitted that it was nobody's case that temple in question is a public trust, therefore, the Courts below erred in issuing the direction to the Plaintiffs under Section 4 of the M.P. Public Trust Act, 1951. It was also submitted that all prior agreements with regard to worship stood superseded on execution of ExP/1 dated 5-8-1945. It was further submitted that it was nobody's case that temple in question is a public trust, therefore, the Courts below erred in issuing the direction to the Plaintiffs under Section 4 of the M.P. Public Trust Act, 1951. On the other hand, learned Counsel for Respondents submitted that vide Ex.P/1 lands were dedicated to the temple and earlier arrangements made in 1911 and 1933 were neither cancelled nor superseded. It was pointed that Plaintiff namely P.W.1 has admitted in para 3 of his deposition that lands were allotted to Ganesh Temple and original Plaintiff only had the right to perform pooja. The order dated 23-6-1993 passed in Second Appeal No. 567/1992 would have the effect of res judicata. However, it is submitted that Courts below erred in issuing the direction to the Plaintiffs to move an application under Section 4 of M.P. Public Trusts Act 1951, as it was no body's case that temple in question is a public trust. In support of his submissions, learned Counsel has placed reliance on decisions in C.V. Rajendran and Anr. v. N.M. Muhammed Kunhi AIR 2003 SC 649 , Makhija Construction & Enggr. Pvt. Ltd. v. Indore Development Authority and Ors. AIR 2005 SC 2499 , U.P. State Road Transport Corporation v. State of U.P. and Anr. AIR 2005 SC 446 , Sarat Chandra Mishra and Ors. v. State of Orissa and Ors. AIR 2006 SC 861 , Nariman Point Association and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors. AIR 2006 Bom 50 , Alwar Chettiar etc. v. Natrajan Pillai and Ors. AIR 2001 Mad 151 and Jamana Prasad v. State of M.P. 2004 RN 22. 8. I have considered the submissions made by learned Counsel for parties. To ascertain the question whether the grant vide Ex.P/1 dated 5-8-1945 was made in favour of the temple or in favour of original Plaintiff Netivallabh close scrutiny of Ex.P/1 is required. The contents of Ex.P/1 reveal that land admeasuring 4.31 acres was granted to Kanhaiyalal who was the Pujari of the temple on 3-11-1993 (sic). He expired on 28-12-1943. To ascertain the question whether the grant vide Ex.P/1 dated 5-8-1945 was made in favour of the temple or in favour of original Plaintiff Netivallabh close scrutiny of Ex.P/1 is required. The contents of Ex.P/1 reveal that land admeasuring 4.31 acres was granted to Kanhaiyalal who was the Pujari of the temple on 3-11-1993 (sic). He expired on 28-12-1943. Therefore, the land was settled in favour of original Plaintiff Netivallabh subject to terms and conditions mentioned therein and he was placed in possession thereof Section 2(15) of the Bhopal State Land Revenue Act, 1932 defines the expression 'occupant' to mean a person who holds land direct from Government or would do so but for the right of collecting land revenue having been assigned or relinquished. Thus, the original Plaintiff was an occupant under the Bhopal State Land Revenue Act, 1932. Section 158(1)(c) of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 provides that every person who holds the land in Bhopal region as an occupant as defined in Bhopal State Land Revenue Act, 1932 shall become Bhoomiswami. Thus, by operation of law on commencement of M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959, the original Plaintiff became Bhoomiswami of the suit land. This conclusion finds support from the khasra entries, namely, Ex.P/6 to P/11 in which the name of Netivallabh is recorded as owner and he is shown to be in possession. Thus, for aforementioned reasons, the first and second substantial questions of law have to be answered in the affirmative and in favour of the Plaintiffs. 9. From perusal of averments made in paragraph 2 of the plaint it is graphically clear that the Plaintiffs have claimed title in respect of temple in question and adjoining lands on the basis of 'Sanad' Exhibit-P-1 dated 5-8-1945. On the other hand the Defendant No. 1 (a)(1) and 2 have pleaded in their written statement that by registered 'Hibanama' dated 14-11-1911 (Ex.D-1), right to perform pooja in the temple and right to manage the lands were conveyed to deceased Defendant No. 1. It is also averred that Defendants have right to perform the 'pooja' alternate years along with Plaintiffs. From perusal of the pleading of the parties, it is clear that it is nobody's case that property in dispute belongs to a Trust. For the aforementioned reasons it is held that property in dispute is not a trust property. It is also averred that Defendants have right to perform the 'pooja' alternate years along with Plaintiffs. From perusal of the pleading of the parties, it is clear that it is nobody's case that property in dispute belongs to a Trust. For the aforementioned reasons it is held that property in dispute is not a trust property. Accordingly, the third substantial question of law is answered. Since, the temple in question as well as the adjoining land does not belong to the trust, therefore, the Courts below committed an error in directing the Plaintiffs to make an application under Section 4 of M.P. Public Trusts Act, 1951. The fourth substantial question of law is answered accordingly. 10. In preceding paragraph it has already been held that in view of 'Sanad' Exhibit-P-1 dated 5-8-1945, on commencement of M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959, the original Plaintiff had become the owner of the lands in question and his right to perform Pooja in the temple was acknowledged vide Ex.P/1 dated 5-8-1945. Therefore, any right created under prior agreement of worship stood extinguished. Therefore, the prior agreement of worship did not create any right in favour of Defendants in respect of the property in dispute. Accordingly, the fifth substantial question of law is answered. 11. Before parting with the case, it is apposite to deal with the submissions made by learned Counsel for the Respondents with regard to the effect of the order dated 23-6-1993 passed in Second Appeal No. 567/1992. Both the second appeals as stated supra were heard on the same date i.e. 23-6-1993. From perusal of memo of appeal of Civil Appeal No. 4A/1986, it is apparent that the Plaintiff had only challenged the decree passed in Civil Appeal No. 4A/1986 on the ground that the trial Court erred in law in issuing a direction to the Plaintiff to move an application under Section 4 of the M.P. Public Trust Act, 1951. The appeal was dismissed summarily on the ground that the question of performing the Pooja in the temple is purely a finding of fact which is not open to challenge in the second appeal. Thus, the appeal was dismissed. The issues which were involved in the instant appeal were neither raised nor decided in the aforesaid second appeal vide order dated 23-6-1993. Thus, the appeal was dismissed. The issues which were involved in the instant appeal were neither raised nor decided in the aforesaid second appeal vide order dated 23-6-1993. It is well settled in law that decision on an issue would operate as res judicata only if the same is raised and decided. [See: Madhvi Amma Bhawani Amma Bhawani Amma and Ors. v. Kunjikutty Pillai Meenakshi Pillai and Ors. AIR 2000 SC 2301 ]. From perusal of the order dated 23-6-1993, it is apparent that the question involved in the instant appeal were neither raised nor decided while deciding the Second Appeal No. 567/1992. Therefore, the order dated 23-6-1993 does not have the effect of res judicata in the instant appeal. 12. For the aforementioned reasons, the judgment and decree passed by the lower Appellate Court is set aside and that of the trial Court is restored with the modification that the direction contained in the decree of the trial Court to the Plaintiffs to make an application under Section 4 of the M.P. Public Trusts Act, 1951 is set aside. In the result, the appeal, succeeds and is allowed with costs.