JUDGMENT : Parth Prateem Sahu, J. As the above two appeals arise out of same judgment, they are being heard and decided together by this common order. 2. Challenge in the above two appeals is to judgment dated 10.5.2005 and decree dated 13.6.2005 passed by learned 7th Additional District Judge (FTC) Durg in Civil Suit No.16A/02 whereby learned Additional District Judge has dismissed suit of plaintiffs/appellants in FA No.175/2005 and partly allowed counter claim of defendants No.3 to 5/appellants in FA No.119/2013. 3. Facts relevant for disposal of present appeals are that one Ramlal son of Chamru Sao was survived by Smt. Bhuri Bai Sao (widow), Bhola Sao (son), Lalchand Sao (son), Kamlabai Gupta (daughter) & Taramati Gupta (daughter). 3. Facts relevant for disposal of present appeals are that one Ramlal son of Chamru Sao was survived by Smt. Bhuri Bai Sao (widow), Bhola Sao (son), Lalchand Sao (son), Kamlabai Gupta (daughter) & Taramati Gupta (daughter). Lalchand Sao filed a suit under Section 8 of the MP Public Trust Act, 1971 (for short 'the Act of 1951) for following reliefs:- ^^¼1½ ;g fd oknh ds i{k esa bl ckr dh ?kks"k.kk dh tkos dh v;ks/;koklh /keZ'kkyk VªLV dk tks iath;u yksd U;kl ds :i esa fd;k x;k gS og fu;eksa ds foijhr gS ,oa okn laifRr U;kl laifRr ugha gS cfYd okn laifRr la;qDr fgUnw ifjokj dh laifRr gS ftl ij oknh dk iw.kZ Hkwfe Lokeh gd o vf/kiR; gSA ¼2½ ;g fd bl ckr ?kks"k.kk fd;k tkos fd Áfroknh Øekad 2 ¼nks½ }kjk laifRr dks tks yksd U;kl dh laifRr ?kksf"kr dh xbZ gS og vkns'k voS/k o 'kwU; gS rFkk oknh ij ca/kudkjh ugha gS] vr,o jktLo Ádj.k Øekad 2c@113 lu~ 1996&97 ¼mUuhl lkS N;kUcs@lUrkUcs½ Hkksyk lko fo:} ykypan lko esa ikfjr vkns'k fnukad 21-1-1997 ¼,Ddhl tuojh mUuhl lkS lUrkUcs½ }kjk iath;d yksd U;kl nqxZ dks fujLr fd;k tkosA ¼3½ ;g fd bl ckr dh Hkh ?kks"k.kk dh tkos fd fnukad 15-5-1954 ¼iaæg ebZ mUuhl lkS pkSou½ dks fd;k x;k cDlhl i= laifRr varj.k vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 122 ¼,d lkS ckbZl½ ds varxZr fof/kor cDlhl ugha gksus ds dkj.k ,oa jkeyky dks l;aqDr fgUnw ifjokj dh laifRr dkd cDlhl djus dk vf/kdkj ugha gksus ds dkj.k ÁHkkoghu nLrkost gS ftlls oknh dk fgr ÁHkkfor ugha gks ldrk ,oa oknh dks okn laifRr dj cgSfl;r Hkwfe Lokeh mi;ksx ,oa miHkksx djus dk vf/kdkj gSA ¼4½ ;g fd oknh ds i{k esa bl ckr dh LFkkbZ fu"ks/kkKk tkjh fd;k tkos dh Áfroknhx.kksa dks oknh ds 'kkafriw.kZ dCts esa n[ky nsus dk dksbZ vf/kdkj ugha gS tc rd laifRr dk vafre foHkktu gksdj LoRo dk vafre fu.kZ; u gks vr,o Áfroknhx.kksa dks LFkkbZ ,oa vLFkkbZ O;kns'k }kjk fu"ksf/kr fd;k tkos fd Lo;a o fdlh vU; ds ek/;e ls oknh dks okn laifRr ls vk; ÁkIr djus ,oa mlds mi;ksx ,oa miHkksx esa fdlh Ádkj dk fo?u ck/kk mRiUu u djsaA ¼5½ ;g fd bl ckr dh ?kks"k.kk dh tkos dh pe: lko us vFkok jkeyky lko us vius thoudky esa dHkh Hkh bPNk O;Dr ugha dh Fkh fd v;ks/;koknh Hkou dks yksd U;kl esa ifjofrZr dj mls yksd U;kl gsrq lefiZr dj nsaxs ;k dj fn;k FkkA vr,o lk{; ,oa rF; ds vHkko esa yksd U;kl iath;u ds laca/k esa dh xbZ dk;Zokgh voS/k ,oa 'kwU; gSA bl fouk; ij Hkh okn laifRr dks yksd U;kl laifRr ds :i esa eqDr fd;k tkos ,oa Áfroknh Øekad 3 ¼rhu½ dk vLrhRo lekIr ?kksf"kr fd;k tkos ,oa Áfroknh Øekad 2 ¼nks½ dks funsZf'kr fd;k tkos dh os yksd U;kl iath ls v;ks/;koklh /keZ'kkyk VªLV d uke foyksfir djsaA rFkk okn ds vafre fujkdj.k rd fookfnr vkns'k ds ÁHkko dks fuyafcr fd;k tkosA ¼6½ ;g fd U;k;ky; O;; ds vykok vU; fnxj lgk;rk vnkyr tks equkflc le>s fnyk;h tkosA** 4. In the pleadings along with other facts, it was specifically pleaded that the property which has been declared as public trust property vide order dated 21.1.1997 passed in Revenue Case No.2B/113/1996-97 was not a public trust property and further direction of registration of public trust i.e. Ayodhyawasi Dharamshala Nyas. In the plaint it was also specifically pleaded that competent authority under the Act of 1951 has firstly not initiated proceeding of enquiry as provided under Section 5 of the Act of 1951 and thereafter contrary to provisions of the Act of 1951 directed for registration of public trust vide order dated 21.1.1997. It has also been pleaded that gift deed dated 15.5.1954 was not a validly executed document and the same is in contravention of the provisions of Section 122 of the Transfer of Property Act. Defendant No.4 shown himself as also the plaintiff to be one of trustees for which the plaintiff has never given any consent and even in verification of said application signature of plaintiff has been forged by defendant No.4. It has also been pleaded that only to dispossess plaintiff from property, defendant No.5 had filed application under Section 4 of the Act of 1951 before the competent authority on false grounds. Property shown to be public trust property was infact purchased by his ancestor Ramlal from the income of joint Hindu family property, therefore, nature of property is joint Hindu family property and as such, it could not have been gifted to anyone without consent of plaintiff and other siblings, who are children of said Ramlal. It has also been pleaded that the authority under the Act of 1951 i.e. Registrar, Public Trust, had called for objection in the proceedings before registration where plaintiff submitted objection but without giving proper opportunity of hearing and conducting enquiry strictly as per provisions of Section 5 of the Act of 1951, the Registrar had passed order on the basis of documents placed along with application filed under Section 4 of the Act of 1951. 5. 5. Defendant No.2/respondent No.2 herein filed reply to suit filed under Section 8 of the Act of 1951 by plaintiff and submitted that original owner of Dharamshala i.e. Late Ramlal Sao, by way of registered gift deed donated Dharamshala building/campus, temple, well and garden along with open land situated within the campus in favour of 'Ayodhyawasi Dharamshala Trust' and thereafter the property came to be recorded in revenue records in the 'Ayodhyawasi Dharamshala (trust)'. Defendant No.2 further pleaded that plaintiff himself had signed registered exchange deed dated 4.7.1968 in his capacity as trustee of Ayodhyawasi Dharamshala. It has also been pleaded that as plaintiff himself was one of trustees and he through his power of attorney holder submitted objection in the proceeding under Section 4 of the Act of 1951 and plaintiff was permitted to make his submission by filing written submissions. After considering relevant documents placed along with application in record by respective parties and after hearing arguments of learned counsel for respective parties, defendant No.2 passed an order directing registration of Ayodhyawasi Dharamshala as a public trust. It has also been stated that all the procedures prescribed were followed before the said order. 6. Defendant Nos.3 to 5 have also submitted their reply and pleaded that building and campus was constructed by Late Ramlal in the year 1943 and during that time itself it was named as 'Dharamshala'. They have also pleaded that on 15.5.1954 Late Ramlal by a registered gift deed had donated building of Dharamshala and its campus including temple, well and garden to Ayodhyawasi Dharamshala (trust). All the taxes to municipal corporation were being paid in the name of Ayodhyawasi Dharamshala. Plaintiff himself had signed one exchange deed dated 4.7.1968 showing himself to be one of trustees of Ayodhyawasi Dharamshala Trust. After following procedure prescribed under the Act of 1951, the Registrar, Public Trust, Durg has allowed application filed by defendants No.3 to 5 under Section 4 of the Act of 1951 and registered Ayodhyawasi Dharamshala as a public trust. Registration of Ayodhyawasi Dharamshala was done by respondent No.4 only to fulfil wish of his father. Along with written statement, defendants No.3 to 5 have also filed cross-suit and prayed for injunction against plaintiff restraining him from interfering with smooth management of trust property. 7. Registration of Ayodhyawasi Dharamshala was done by respondent No.4 only to fulfil wish of his father. Along with written statement, defendants No.3 to 5 have also filed cross-suit and prayed for injunction against plaintiff restraining him from interfering with smooth management of trust property. 7. After appreciating the evidence brought on record by both the parties, the trial Court by the impugned judgment & decree dismissed suit of the plaintiff and partly allowed counter claim of respondents No.3 to 5 herein. 8. Learned counsel for appellants would argue that impugned judgment and decree passed by learned trial Court is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to provisions of Section 8 of the Act of 1951. Though a specific pleading was made by plaintiffs in plaint that the Registrar, Public Trust, Durg has not complied with provisions of Section 5 read with Section 28, 29 & 30 of the Act of 1951 and Rule 5 of the Rules of 1962 before passing order under Section 6 & 7 of the Act of 1951, no specific issue has been framed to this effect, therefore, plaintiff could not lead any evidence and marked documents available on record as exhibit in support of his case. He further argued that from the documents available in record it is clear that the Registrar has not complied with provisions of the Act of 1951 and even not provided opportunity of hearing before passing order under Section 6 & 7 of the Act of 1951, therefore, the matter may be remanded back to the trial Court for taking decision afresh after framing an issue with respect to compliance of provisions of Section 5 of the Act of 1951. He also argued that property in dispute though purchased by Late Ramlal but from the income of joint Hindu family property, therefore, nature of property is joint Hindu family, which cannot be gifted to any other person or entity without consent of other co-sharers/co-owners of property in question. He further argued that so-called registered gift deed (Ex.D1-C) is not a valid gift deed because it has not been validly executed as per provisions of Section 122 of the Transfer of Property Act. Application under Section 4 of the Act of 1951 has been filed by respondent No.4 himself, showing plaintiff to be one of the trustees for which he has not given any consent to him. 9. Application under Section 4 of the Act of 1951 has been filed by respondent No.4 himself, showing plaintiff to be one of the trustees for which he has not given any consent to him. 9. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.4 submits that original owner of property i.e. Late Ramlal, during his lifetime had executed a registered gift deed under which he donated his property in favour of Ayodhyawasi Dharamshala and since then he is managing the property as its Manager. It has further been argued that Registrar after complying all relevant provisions provided under the Act of 1951 has passed order under Section 6 & 7 of the Act of 1951. He further argued that the trial Court after considering documents Ex.D-1 & Ex.D-2, which are registered documents, and also considering other material and evidence available on record held that plaintiff failed to prove his case and dismissed his suit. He further argued that on the basis of registered document and after deciding objection filed by plaintiff/appellants herein, property has been registered as public trust by the Registrar, Public Trust, Durg. 10. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents No.1 & 2 would argue that arguments advanced by learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellants with regard to non-compliance of provisions of the Act of 1951 is baseless. The Registrar after following due procedure passed an order dated 21.1.1997. It has also been argued that trial Court on the basis of pleadings of parties framed important issues looking to controversy and dispute between the parties raised before it. It has also been argued that trial Court has passed impugned judgment and decree strictly in accordance with law and it is the plaintiff who failed to prove his case before learned trial Court, therefore, the impugned judgment and decree does not call for any interference. 11. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 12. It has also been argued that trial Court has passed impugned judgment and decree strictly in accordance with law and it is the plaintiff who failed to prove his case before learned trial Court, therefore, the impugned judgment and decree does not call for any interference. 11. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 12. Learned trial Court framed following issues on the basis of pleadings of respective parties:- ^^¼1½ D;k okn laifRr la;qDr fgUnw ifjokj dh gS \ ¼v½ D;k ;g okn laifRr oknh ds iw.kZ LokfeRokf/kiR; dh gS \ ¼2½ D;k Áfroknh Øekad 2 }kjk fnukad 21-1-1997 dks ikfjr vkns'k fujLr fd, tkus ;ksX; gS \ ¼3½ D;k jkeyky dks okn laifRr la;qDr fgUnw ifjokj dh gksus ds dkj.k bl laifRr dks c['kh'k djus dk vf/kdkj ugha Fkk \ ¼v½ ;g gka rks fnukad 15-5-1954 dks fu"ikfnr c['kh'kukek ÁHkkoghu nLrkost gS \ ¼4½ D;k okn laifRr yksd U;kl laifRr ds :i ls eqDr fd, tkus ;ksX; gS \ ¼5½ D;k oknh okn laifRr ds laca/k esa fdlh Ádkj dh vkifRr djus ls oS/kkfud :i ls focaf/kr gS \ ¼6½ vuqrks"k ,oa okn O;; \** 13. From perusal of issues framed it appears that trial Court failed to frame one of the important issue which is germane to the facts of case i.e whether defendant No.2/respondent No.2- Registrar, Public Trust has followed the procedure prescribed under the Act of 1951 before passing order of registration of trust? In pleadings the plaintiffs have taken a very specific plea that defendant No.2/respondent No.2 herein has not complied with provisions of the Act of 1951 particularly Section 5. 14. Section 5 of the Act of 1951 deals with enquiry for registration. In pleadings the plaintiffs have taken a very specific plea that defendant No.2/respondent No.2 herein has not complied with provisions of the Act of 1951 particularly Section 5. 14. Section 5 of the Act of 1951 deals with enquiry for registration. It mandates the Registrar to conduct an enquiry for ascertaining following important facts before registration/declaration of any property as a public trust property; "(i) whether the trust is a public trust; (ii) whether any property is the property of such trust; (iii) whether the whole or any substantial portion of the subject-matter of the trust is situated within his jurisdiction; (iv) the names and the addresses of the trustees and the manager of such trust; (v) the mode of succession to the office of the trustee of such trust; (vi) the origin, nature and object of such trust; (vii) the amount of gross average annual income and the expenditure of such trust; and (viii) the correctness or otherwise of any other particulars furnished under sub-section (3) of Section 4." 15. Order 14 Rule 1 deals with framing of issues, which reads as under:- "1. Framing of issues.- (1) Issues arise when a material proposition of fact or law is affirmed by the one party and denied by the other. (2) Material propositions are those propositions of law or fact which a plaintiff must allege in order to show a right to sue or a defendant must allege in order to constitute his defence. (3) Each material proposition affirmed by one-party and denied by the other shall form the subject of distinct issue. (4) Issues are of two kinds: (a) issues of fact, (b) issues of law. (5) At the first hearing of the suit the Court shall, after reading the plaint and the written statements, if any, and [after examination under rule 2 of Order X and after hearing the parties or their pleaders], ascertain upon what material propositions of fact or of law the parties are at variance, and shall thereupon proceed to frame and record the issues on which the right decision of the case appears to depend. (6) Nothing in this rule requires the Court to frame and record issues where the defendant at the first hearing of the suit makes no defence." 16. (6) Nothing in this rule requires the Court to frame and record issues where the defendant at the first hearing of the suit makes no defence." 16. In Makhan Lal Bangal v. Manas Bhunia & ors, (2001) AIR SC 490, the Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with necessity of framing specific issues with respect to pleadings made by respective parties has held thus:- "19. An election petition is like a civil trial. The stage of framing the issues is an important one inasmuch as on that day the scope of the trial is determined by laying the path on which the trial shall proceed excluding diversions and departures therefrom. The date fixed for settlement of issues is, therefore, a date fixed for hearing. The real dispute between the parties is determined, the area of conflict is narrowed and the concave mirror held by the court reflecting the pleadings of the parties pinpoints into issues the disputes on which the two sides differ. The correct decision of civil lis largely depends on correct framing of issues, correctly determining the real points in controversy which need to be decided. The scheme of Order XIV of the Code of Civil Procedure dealing with settlement of issues shows that an issue arises when a material proposition of fact or law is affirmed by one party and denied by the other. Each material proposition affirmed by one party and denied by other should form the subject of a distinct issue. An obligation is cast on the court to read the plaint/petition and the written statement/counter, if any, and then determine with the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties, the material propositions of fact or of law on which the parties are at variance. The issues shall be framed and recorded on which the decision of the case shall depend. The parties and their counsel are bound to assist the court in the process of framing of issues. Duty of the counsel does not belittle the primary obligation cast on the court. It is for the Presiding Judge to exert himself so as to frame sufficiently expressive issues. An omission to frame proper issues may be a ground for remanding the case for retrial subject to prejudice having been shown to have resulted by the omission. Duty of the counsel does not belittle the primary obligation cast on the court. It is for the Presiding Judge to exert himself so as to frame sufficiently expressive issues. An omission to frame proper issues may be a ground for remanding the case for retrial subject to prejudice having been shown to have resulted by the omission. The petition may be disposed of at the first hearing if it appears that the parties are not at issue on any material question of law or of fact and the court may at once pronounce the judgment. If the parties are at issue on some questions of law or of fact, the suit or petition shall be fixed for trial calling upon the parties to adduce evidence on issues of fact. The evidence shall be confined to issues and the pleadings. No evidence on controversies, not covered by issues and the pleadings, shall normally be admitted, for each party leads evidence in support of issues the burden of proving which lies on him. The object of an issue is to tie down the evidence and arguments and decision to a particular question so that there may be no doubt on what the dispute is. The judgment, then proceeding issue-wise would be able to tell precisely how the dispute was decided." 17. In Fiza Developers and Inter-trade Private Limited v. AMCI (India) Private Limited & another, (2009) 17 SCC 796 observed as under:- "10. The object of issues is to focus upon the questions on which evidence has to be led and to indicate the party on whom the burden of proof lies." In the aforementioned judgment Hon'ble Supreme Court while reiterating law laid down in Makhan Lal Bangal's case (supra), has further observed that object of issue is to focus upon question on which evidence has to be led and to indicate the party on whom the burden of proof lies. It has been further observed that framing of issues is necessary in every contested regular civil suit. 18. As the suit filed by plaintiffs/appellants herein is under Section 8 of the Act of 1951, therefore, learned trial Court ought to have considered and decided very specific ground raised by plaintiffs/appellants that the Registrar, Public Trust has not initiated any enquiry as contemplated under Section 5 read with Section 28, 29 & 30 of the Act of 1951. 19. As the suit filed by plaintiffs/appellants herein is under Section 8 of the Act of 1951, therefore, learned trial Court ought to have considered and decided very specific ground raised by plaintiffs/appellants that the Registrar, Public Trust has not initiated any enquiry as contemplated under Section 5 read with Section 28, 29 & 30 of the Act of 1951. 19. In the case at hand there is specific pleading made by plaintiff that defendant No.2 has not complied with the provisions as provided under the Act of 1951 for registration of a public trust, but the trial Court failed to frame specific issue on this point. In view of the above and looking to provisions of law as provided under Order 14 Rule 1 CPC as well as law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in above cited judgments, in the opinion of this Court, the trial Court erred in not framing specific issue with respect to proceedings of enquiry as per procedure prescribed under the Act of 1951, which is an important issue in view of pleadings of plaint and facts & circumstances of the case. 20. For the foregoing reasons, FA No.175/2005 is allowed, impugned judgment and decree are set aside and the matter is remanded back to trial Court concerned with a direction to frame following issues; "(a) whether the Registrar, Public Trust has followed all the procedures in an enquiry before passing order dated 21.1.1997? (b) whether proper opportunity was afforded to the plaintiff by the Registrar in an enquiry under Section 5 of the Act of 1951 before passing order under Section 6 of the Act of 1951?" The trial Court shall provide effective opportunity to the parties to lead additional evidence on aforesaid new issues and thereafter record a finding on these issues and decide the suit afresh in accordance with law within a period of six months from the date of receipt of record of the case. The parties are directed to appear before the trial Court concerned on 17.6.2019. Record of trial Court be returned well before the date fixed along with copy of this judgment. The parties are also directed to cooperate for disposal of suit early than the stipulated period. 21. The parties are directed to appear before the trial Court concerned on 17.6.2019. Record of trial Court be returned well before the date fixed along with copy of this judgment. The parties are also directed to cooperate for disposal of suit early than the stipulated period. 21. Consequently, in view of above conclusion, F.A. No.119/2013 filed by defendants No.3 to 5 stands dismissed at this stage as the judgment and decree of trial Court itself is set aside. The parties will be at liberty to challenge the judgment to be passed by trial Court after remand, if aggrieved. Parties to bear their own cost.