JUDGMENT : G.D. Saxena, J. - This appeal under Section 104 read with Order 47Rule 1(r) of the Code of Civil Code 1908 has been preferred by the defendants/appellants having been aggrieved by an order dated 7th May 2013 in Civil SuitNo.2A/2013 passed by the First Additional District Judge Bhind (M.P.) granting temporary injunction against the defendants restraining them from interfering into peaceful possession of the plaintiffs and causing damage to the properties under suit. (2) The necessary facts of the case are that the temple of Jains known as ‘Shree 108 Acharya Surya Sagar Nasiyaji is situated from before at Water Works Road Bhind with its wide movable and immovable properties. The worship and the properties of the said temple by that time were being managed by a Trust. As per pleadings of the respondents/plaintiffs, the trust was registered under Madhya Pradesh Society Registration Act 1973 since 1978 vide Registration No. 6851 dated 16th September 1978. It is stated that on 30th June 2012, some persons including appellants/defendants passed the resolution for creation of new trust and also resolved that the trust newly formed be registered under M.P. Public Trust Act1951. In pursuance of the resolution, an application was filed before the Registrar, Public Trust Bhind for registration of the Public Trust for management of the Temple and it's properties situated in Bhind. After following the procedure prescribed in law and deciding the objections raised by the persons from public, the Registrar M.P. Public Trust registered the trust proposed for “Shree 108 Achaya Surya Sagar Udaseen AshramNasiyaji Bhind” without any movable or immovable properties for conducting religious, social and educational functions on behalf of such trust having further intent to create harmonious atmosphere. The trust was consisting of 31 members who were bound to follow the provisions of law by maintaining the accounts regularly. The trust was consisting of 31 members who were bound to follow the provisions of law by maintaining the accounts regularly. (3) It is alleged that in the garb of the registration before the Registrar M.P. Public Trust Bhind, the defendants tried to disturb possession and management of the movable and immovable properties attached with the temple and under management of trust, resultantly, the plaintiffs who are the Chairman and Secretary of the Managing Trust registered under M.P. Society Registration Act 1973 filed the suit against the defendants for declaration by questioning the validity of the proceedings launched before the Registrar M.P. Public Trust and registration of the trust on application filed by Shri Arvind Jain and others before the Registrar M.P. Public Trust Bhind with perpetual injunction for safety of the possession of the plaintiffs over the movable and immovable properties attached with the temple. On application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 C.P.C. filed along with suit, the learned trial court, after considering the parties' contentions and evidence on record by an order under appeal, issued the temporary injunction for safety of possession over the property of the temple managed by the trust headed by the plaintiffs. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the defendants have come to this court. (4) It is the submission of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants that, on the date of suit, the plaintiffs could not prove prima facie case in their favour, nor the plaintiffs were in possession over the movable or immovable properties under management of the trust headed by the defendants/appellants. It is argued that prior to the event the working trustees, i.e., the plaintiffs and others had lost the confidence and the properties were mismanaged, hence, the trustees passed the resolution against the working trustees and as per resolution the application for registration under M.P. Public Trust Act was filed before the Registrar M.P. Public Trust Bhind. By adopting the prescribed procedure and deciding the objections received, the Registrar validly by passing the order registered the trust under the Act. It is, therefore, prayed that by allowing the appeal, the order under appeal and the application for issuance of temporary injunction in favour of the plaintiffs may be set aside. By adopting the prescribed procedure and deciding the objections received, the Registrar validly by passing the order registered the trust under the Act. It is, therefore, prayed that by allowing the appeal, the order under appeal and the application for issuance of temporary injunction in favour of the plaintiffs may be set aside. (5) Per contra, the respondents by supporting the order under appeal, contended that prior to get the registration as Public Trust under M.P. Public Trust Act 1951, in favour of Shree 108 Acharya Surya Sagar Nasiyaji headed by the plaintiffs, the said institution was validly registered under M.P. Society Registration Act 1973 and the properties were well being managed, hence, there appears no imminent danger about vesting or alienating the suit property by the plaintiffs. It is submitted that the defendants being the trustees of the newly registered trust as above were trying to take the possession of the movable and immovable properties attached with temple which were under control and management of the trust registered already in the year 1978 under M.P. Registration of Societies Act 1973, so the learned trial Judge after well considering the evidence on record and the law applicable passed the valid order of injunction against the appellants/defendants who have absolutely no authority nor have the confidence of the persons interested and the properties attached to the temple as the properties were not safe in the hands of defendants. On this basis, it is prayed that by dismissing the appeal, the order assailed herein may be made absolute. (6) Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Also perused the record of the case and the law applicable to the issue raised. (7) The question that calls for consideration in this appeal is whether the learned court-below has committed an illegality in issuing restraint order against the appellants ? (8) It is admitted that prior to filing of the suit in year1978, temple Digambar Jain Nasiyaji 108 Acharya Surya Sagar Ashram Bhind through existing trust was already registered under M.P. Society Registration Act 1973. On disputes between the trustees and devotees, certain persons including defendants and others applied for registration of formed public trust known as ‘Shree 108Acharya Surya Sagar Nasiyaji Trust‘. After inquiry, the Registrar M.P. Public Trust Bhind registered the said Trust. Immediately thereafter dispute regarding control over movable/immovable properties arose which gave rise to filing the present suit. On disputes between the trustees and devotees, certain persons including defendants and others applied for registration of formed public trust known as ‘Shree 108Acharya Surya Sagar Nasiyaji Trust‘. After inquiry, the Registrar M.P. Public Trust Bhind registered the said Trust. Immediately thereafter dispute regarding control over movable/immovable properties arose which gave rise to filing the present suit. (9) Now, the question that will arise is whether a trust which is already registered under law known as “M.P. Society Registration Act 1973” dehors the question of applicability of the M.P. Public Trust Act 1951 for the purposes of bringing a suit and the trust which is already registered under M.P. Society Registration Act 1973 is not governed by M.P. Public Trust Act 1951 ? (10) For consideration and answer the question on validity of the subsequent trust registered under M.P. Public Trust Act, the relevant provisions are required to be considered. (11) Section 36 of M.P. Public Trust Act 1951 is as follows:- “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. (b) a public trust administered under any enactment for the time being in force; and (c) a public trust to which the Muslim Wakf Act 1954(29 of 1974) applies. (2) The State Government may exempt by notification specifying the reasons for such exemption in the said notification, any public trust or class of public trusts from all or any of the provisions of this Act subject to such conditions, if any, as the State Government may deem fit to impose: (12) If there is any enactment which provides for the management and control over affairs of public trust, the public trust would come within the exemption irrespective of the fact that the same enactment covers management and control of other public trust of the same nature. When an institution has been registered as a society under M.P. Societies Registration Act 1959, by virtue of the provision contained in Section 36(b) of the M.P. Public Trusts Act 1951, the provision of the Public Trust Act ceased to apply and the institution is exempted from the operation of Public Trust Act including those contained in Section 32 thereof. In Shri Nabhi Nandan Digambar Jain Hitopdeshani Sabha Vs. In Shri Nabhi Nandan Digambar Jain Hitopdeshani Sabha Vs. Ramchandand 1983 J.L.J. 469 this court while considering the matter observed as follows :- “The plaintiff is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act 1860 which automatically became a society registered under the M.P. Societies Registration Act 1959, and thereafter under the M.P. Registration act 1973;under these Acts, the Secretary has been empowered to file on behalf of the society unless there is a provision to the contrary in the constitution of a particular society. Section 36 of the Act provides that nothing contained in this Act apply to a public trust administered under any enactment for the time being in force. As the plaintiff society was already administered under the Societies Registration Act 1860, it is not governed by the provisions of M.P. Public Trust Act. It is true that the definition of the public trust in Section 2(4) includes a society formed for a religious or charitable purpose. Therefore, such a society has to function under dual control of the regulating machinery-under the Societies Registration Act and also under the Public Trust Act. This may give rise some difficulties as in present case. But in the present case, there is nothing to show that the plaintiff-society is a trust, as such, even though it was registered under the Public Trust Act. A Division Bench of this court in State of M.P. Vs. Mother Superior Convent School Sagar 1958 MPLJ611 has held- “The existence of a public trust is the sin qua non of action in respect of temples, math, mosques, churches, and wakfs or societies formed for religious or charitable purposes. If the basic condition viz. the existence of public trust is missing the definition of public trust as given in Section 2 (4) of the M.P. Public Trusts Act cannot being into the mischief of the Act religious and charitable institutions which do not administer any trust property. If the basic condition viz. the existence of public trust is missing the definition of public trust as given in Section 2 (4) of the M.P. Public Trusts Act cannot being into the mischief of the Act religious and charitable institutions which do not administer any trust property. In view of the provisions of Section 2(1) of the Act the word ‘trust’ has to be given the same meaning as given in the Indian Trust Act, which requires the existence of trustees trust properties and beneficiaries.” (13) After giving my thoughtful considerations to the legal as well as factual aspects of the present case, it is found proved after analysing the documentary evidence and affidavits of witnesses as filed before the trial court that in the year 1978, a trust for religious purpose and management of worship of the idols installed in temple and the movable and immovable properties attached with temple above was registered before the Registrar of the Madhya Pradesh Society Registration Act 1973 and plaintiffs Mahaveer Jain as Chairperson and Ashok Kumar Jain as Secretary of the present working trustees were nominated. Prior to institution of the suit, in a meeting a resolution was passed against the present trustees. Pursuant thereto, an application for registration of the new trust was moved by some of the trustees including the defendants/appellants Arvind Jain as Chairperson, Dinesh Jain as Secretary and Ravi Jain as General Secretary before the Registrar of Public Trust Bhind. By holding all formalities as prescribed in the Act, the Registrar registered the Trust under M.P. Public Trust Act 1951. However, in the order of registration dated 26th February 2013, the trust did not disclose the property either movable or immovable which in turn indicated that the newly formed trust was not at all concerned with the movable and immovable properties registered under M.P. Societies Registration Act. It also appears that before proceeding for registration under M.P. Public Trust Act, the appellants/defendants and other decedents trustees did not choose to proceed in accordance with the provisions as contained in M.P. Societies Registration Act 1973. Since the trust as above was registered already under M.P. Societies Registration Act 1973, eventually provisions contained under Section36 of the M.P. Public Trust Act are not applicable to the present scenario. Since the trust as above was registered already under M.P. Societies Registration Act 1973, eventually provisions contained under Section36 of the M.P. Public Trust Act are not applicable to the present scenario. So far as the management of the properties of the temple is concerned, it is quite vivid that on the date of bringing the suit, the properties were under control and management of the old trust registered under M.P. Societies Registration Act 1973headed by the plaintiffs Mahaveer Jain and Ashok Jain, prima facie therefore, the trial court was right in passing the impugned order in favour of the plaintiffs/respondents. (14) Consequently, finding no irregularity or illegality in the order passed by the trial Court, the present appeal by confirming the aforesaid order dated 7th May 2013, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed.