Research › Search › Judgment

Chhattisgarh High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 249 (CHH)

Geeta Devi Sharma v. Ganpatlal Sharma (Died)

2023-05-04

GOUTAM BHADURI, SANJAY KUMAR JAISWAL

body2023
JUDGMENT : GOUTAM BHADURI, J. 1. The instant appeal is against the judgment and decree dated 30.06.2018 passed by the Additional District Judge, Bhatapara, in Civil Suit No. 6-A/2013 whereby the suit filed by late Geeta Devi Sharma wife of late Dashrathlal Sharma, now represented through her son Sanjay Sharma, was dismissed. 2. The facts of this case are that Smt. Geeta Devi Sharma filed a suit for declaration and injunction that the suit property which is situated at Bhatapara at Sheet No. 12-B, plot no. 145 admeasuring 794 square meters, wherein a Shiv Manidr was constructed by the father of plaintiff Geeta Devi namely Kundanlal Sharma. The averments are that the said land was obtained by Kundanlal Sharma from Indian Railways and thereafter the property was recorded in the name of Kundanlal Sharma in revenue records. Kundanlal Sharma died on 01.01.1990 and thereafter the name of plaintiff was recorded in revenue records. It is further stated that during the life time of Kundanlal Sharma, he used to manage the affairs of the temple and after his death, as per his wish and will, the entire property situated at Bhatapara devolved on his daughter Geeta and as of now after death of Geeta, on her son Sanjay by succession. The plaintiff further stated that as per the will, son namely Sanjay along with plaintiff Geeta Devi Sharma took over the management of the said temple and was managing the affairs. 3. The plaintiff states that in the year 2004, on the basis of a forged will of Kundan Lal Sharma the then defendants Ram Gopal Sharma (D-1) Ganpat Lal Sharma (D-2), Ramesh Tiwari (D-3) and Bhojraj Purohit (D-4) filed an application for mutation of their names and got their names mutated on the basis of Will dated 24.10.1983 in revenue records. The plaintiff having known the fact challenged the same before the Revenue authorities. The plaintiff further stated that the will dated 24.10.1983 is suspicious and when the Will was executed, Kundan Lal Sharma was not in a sound state of mind and the Will dated 24.10.1983 wherein the propounder Goand Brahmin Mahasabha in whose favour the alleged will was executed was not in existence. It was further stated that the congregation of people did not have any registration in the Trust under the Public Trust Act or no trustees were existing. 4. It was further stated that the congregation of people did not have any registration in the Trust under the Public Trust Act or no trustees were existing. 4. The plaintiff also states that in the year 1976, Kundanlal Sharma has bequeathed the entire property to his grandson Sanjay Sharma and till 2004, despite 14 years have passed the Will dated 24.10.1983 never came to fore. With respect to mutation, the proceeding before the revenue authorities and the appellate authorities are pending wherein the Board of Revenue eventually remitted the case back to the Najul Officer. The plaintiff also pleaded that taking advantage of absence of plaintiff, the defendant tried to take-over the possession of suit property and has placed the sign-board in the name of Goand Brahman Samaj. Thereafter, defendants are obstructing entry of the plaintiff and her son to perform daily worship (Pooja) and offer “Bhog” in the Shiv Mandir. Therefore, the relief for declaration and injunction was sought for to the effect that the defendants be restrained to do so. 5. The defendants pleaded that the property was not owned by late Kundan Lal Sharma and he was only holding the property as a Manager of Mandir and his name was recorded as Manager in revenue records. Therefore, in the capacity of Manager, the Will dated 24.10.1983 was executed in favour of defendants to manage the temple and by virtue of such will, the defendants started to perform worship (Pooja) and other rituals as per the tradition which are required in the temple. The defendants further stated that they are members of Goand Brahman Mahasabha and the plaintiff has never managed the affairs of temple at any point of time as she was residing at Bilaspur for the last 50 years at the time of filing suit. The defendant further asserted that they are in possession and were performing the rituals in the said temple. The defendants further stated that the land on which the Shiv Mandir is situated was earlier the land of Railways, which with the passage of time became a Najzul land and in 1969, a permanent lease was executed in the name of Kundan Lal Sharma as Prabhandak (Manager) of Shiv Mandir, therefore, Kundanlal had never owned the property at any point of time. The defendant further stated that the suit property in question devolved on defendants by virtue of Will, and further stated that a Dharmashala was constructed according to the will and wish of late Kundan Lal, which are part of the property. Therefore, it was pleaded that the plaintiff’s suit was liable to be rejected. 6. On the basis of pleading, the learned trial Court framed four issues. With respect to issue no. 1 that whether the plaintiff is owner of the suit land, it held that the plaintiff has not proved that she is owner and with respect to issue no. 2, it was held that she is not in possession. Consequently the claim as made in the plaint was dismissed. Being aggrieved by such order, the instant appeal. 7. During the pendency of this appeal, the original plaintiff Geeta Devi Sharma died and her son Sanjay Sharma, who is grand-son of Kundanlal Sharma was substituted as appellant as sole successor. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that Kundan Lal Sharma died on 01.01.1990 and after his death, for the first time, the Will dated 24.10.1983 was produced wherein the defendants claimed to be Trustees of Brahman Mahasabha and on the basis of Will dated Ex.D-1, their names were mutated. Against such claim, Geeta Devi Sharma filed a suit. Learned counsel would submit that Goand Brahman Mahasabha, the beneficiary propounder is not a registered Trust and when suit was filed, 4 trustees were alive. Referring to the contents of Will, it is submitted that the Will was not properly proved as required u/s 63 of the Evidence Act and the contents of Will would show that Kundan Lal Sharma has only passed on responsibility to manage the affairs of the temple and ownership was held with him. He submits that the finding of the trial Court exists in this regard which has not been challenged that Kundan Lal is the owner. He submits that the Will would show that it was the beneficiaries of it who were arrayed as defendants have died except one during the pendency of the suit. He submits that the Will also contains specific terms that in case of death of the trustees, the rest of remaining trustees would elect the trustee by majority, which was not carried out. 9. He submits that the Will also contains specific terms that in case of death of the trustees, the rest of remaining trustees would elect the trustee by majority, which was not carried out. 9. Further in respect of the Will, he placed reliance on case laws reported in (2013) 7 SCC 40 and 2019 SCC Online 1747 to submit that the attesting witnesses DW-2 has never stated that at any point of time the Will was read-over to the testator before he signed. So even if registered it would be treated to be not proved. He would submit that the object of Will was for management of the temple and in absence of appointment of new trustees, the certainty of the beneficiary was doubtful, therefore, the purpose of Will came to an end. Referring to section 2(h) of Indian Succession Act, the counsel would further submit that the Will was only for management and by passage of time even it was for general public, the provisions of Chhattisgarh Public Trust Act, 1951 would show that the registration of it was mandatory which was not carried out. He further submits that when the provisions of Section 6 of The Indian Trust Act 1892, is read along with the contents of Will, it shows that there was no intention to create a Private Trust by the testator to divest himself from the ownership and when the purpose of Will was not served, the existence of the Trust would come to an end. Referring to AIR 1960 Kerala 1 and 1998 MPLJ 113 , he would submit that the intention would be the guiding factor in such creation of trust and when only the management was given, nothing can be inferred that the ownership is transferred. He would submit that the trial Court has completely misjudged the issues to come to a wrong finding, hence the appeal requires interference in the same. 10. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents would submit that the issue is about the devolution of property in trust i.e. the land wherein Shiv Temple at Bhatapara exists. He would submit that the lease was renewed in the name of Shankarji Temple wherein Kundan Lal Sharma was shown as Manager and perusal of Ex.D-1 would show that the owner himself divested out of the ownership and gave it for a charitable purpose thereby the religious endowment was created. He would submit that the lease was renewed in the name of Shankarji Temple wherein Kundan Lal Sharma was shown as Manager and perusal of Ex.D-1 would show that the owner himself divested out of the ownership and gave it for a charitable purpose thereby the religious endowment was created. He would submit that the evidence exists that another Will was executed and other properties were bequeathed to Sanjay Sharma which excludes the property of Shiv Mandir at Bhatapara which shows the intention of the testator to create a charitable endowment. Referring to the statement of defence witness (DW-4), he would submit that Dharmashala has been constructed over the land adjacent to the Shiv Temple for general public, which would show that the charitable purpose was carried out. He would submit that the land having been settled in the name of Deity Shankarji Maharaj, the character of Prabhandak (manager) would be like a Shebait and he could have disposed of the hereditary character of management by Will and once the dedication is done, it would be irrevocable. He placed reliance in Profulla Chorone Requitte vs. Satya Chorone Requitte, (1979) 3 SCC 409 and Shiromani Gurdwara Prabandhak Committee, Amritsar vs. Som Nath Dass, (2000) 4 SCC 146 . He further submits that the evidence would show that the plaintiff was not in possession, therefore the suit simplicitor for declaration would not lie. He placed reliance on Mishrilal vs. Mohanlal, 2023 SCC Online 401. 11. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the evidence. The nucleus of issue is Document which is Ex.D-1, a Will which Kundan Lal Sharma executed a registered Will on 24th October 1983 wherein the beneficiary was shown as Goand Brahmin Mahasabha represented through its trustees. 7 persons were named therein as trustees. To this Will, the attesting witness was Anil Brigu (DW-2). He has affirmed his signature and thumb impression on the Will which was signed before him by testator. Likewise, witness DW-3 Devendra Kumar Bhrigu has proved the signature of his father late Durga Prasad. This witness (DW-3) has deposed and identified the signature of father to say that he has seen his father signing many documents, therefore he is well acquainted with his father’s signature. The statement of DW-2 would show that the Will was signed initially by Kundan Lal, the executor. This witness (DW-3) has deposed and identified the signature of father to say that he has seen his father signing many documents, therefore he is well acquainted with his father’s signature. The statement of DW-2 would show that the Will was signed initially by Kundan Lal, the executor. Subsequent to it, he along with Anil Bhrigu and Durga Prasad as a witness signed the said Will before the Registrar and at the time of execution of the Will, Kundan Lal was mentally sound person. The reliance placed by the appellant in Raj Kumari vs. Surendra Pal Sharma, 2019 SCC Online 1747 lays down that the Sub-Registrar in the matter of registration of document under the provisions of Indian Registration Act, 1908 cannot be an attesting witness cannot be interpreted favourably for appellant in facts of case. The Will is duly attested and one of the attesting witness is examined. In reference of execution of document, herein the Will, the expression ‘attesting witness’ is within the meaning of Section 3 of the Transfer of Property Act and Section 63 of Indian Succession Act means “bearing witness to a fact.” The two valid conditions of attestation of documents are: (i) two or more attesting witnesses have seen the executant sign the instrument; (ii) each of them has signed the instrument in the presence of executant. Further and importantly, attestations require animus attestandi that is for the purpose of attesting that he has seen the executant sign or has received from him a personal acknowledgment of his signature. 12. The statement of Anil Bhrigu who was an attesting witness would show that he had put his signature on the Will not in discharge of statutory duty but with an intent to attest it as a witness. Section 68 of the Evidence Act requires that one attesting witness would be sufficient and in case it is denied, it can be proved by the other evidence as per Section 71 of the Evidence Act. The statement of DW-3 who has deposed the fact that the Will bears the signature of his father to which, he has acquaintance for the reason that he has seen him signing would show that proof of attestation was compiled with apart from the fact that one of the attesting witness was examined. The statement of DW-3 who has deposed the fact that the Will bears the signature of his father to which, he has acquaintance for the reason that he has seen him signing would show that proof of attestation was compiled with apart from the fact that one of the attesting witness was examined. Therefore, in the facts of this case, the Will being registered and supported by the evidence of DW-2 and DW-3, the presumption of correctness of a registered document can be drawn as per the principle laid down in G. Mahalingappa vs. G.M. Savitha, (2005) 6 SCC 441 . 13. Now coming back to the contents of the Will, Ex.D-1 was examined. A perusal of it shows that Kundan Lal Son of Onkar Prasad Sharma stated that initially he obtained the land from Railways wherein Shiv Temple was constructed and it is his will and wish that after him, the temple to be managed. It was written that he being the owner wanted to make arrangement and he is the manager of Shiv Mandir and after his death, it would be managed by Goand Brahman Mahasabha and 7 persons were named as trustees. The Will further records it is his desire that over the property, a Dharmashala may be constructed and in case of death of any trustee, the remaining trustees would appoint another new trustee by majority. The Will also records that Dharmashala may be constructed and the income derives from Dharmashala would be used for maintenance of Mandir and religious functions. It further records that for his daughter, the arrangements of properties have already been made and other heirs would not be entitled to claim any right over Shiv Mandir Temple. 14. At the time of execution of the Will, the testator was part and parcel to manage the affairs of the temple along with 7 trustees. The property in respect of which Will was executed is Ex.D-4. The document Ex.D-4 is a renewal lease deed which shows that the lease was renewed in the name of Shankarji Ka Mandir Prabhandhak Kundan Maharaj of Bhatrapara. The lease was in respect of 794 square meters of same land for which Will was executed. The grant was in the name of deity with a description that it would be managed by Kundanlal Sharma. The lease was in respect of 794 square meters of same land for which Will was executed. The grant was in the name of deity with a description that it would be managed by Kundanlal Sharma. The grant of Najul land was earlier governed by The Government Grants Act 1895 before it was repealed in the year 2017. Sections 2 and 3 very specifically provides that the provisions of Transfer of Property Act do not apply to such grant of a government land. For the sake of brevity, sections 2 and 3 are reproduced hereunder: “2. Transfer of Property Act, 1882, not to apply to Government grants - Nothing in the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, contained shall apply or be deemed ever to have applied to any grant or other transfer of land or of any interest therein heretofore made or hereafter to be made by or on behalf of the Government to, or in favour of, any person whomsoever; but every such grant and transfer shall be construed and take effect as if the said Act had not been passed. 3. Government Grants to take effect according to their tenor - All provisions, restrictions, conditions and limitations over contained in any such grant or transfer as aforesaid shall be valid and take effect according to their tenor, any rule of law, statute or enactment of the Legislature to the contrary notwithstanding.” 15. When the renewal was made before the repeal of the Government Grants Act 2017, the said lease would be covered by the Grants Act 1985. It gives power to the Government to impose limitations and restrictions upon Grants and other transfers of land made by it or under the authority. Section 3 of the Act says that all provisions, restrictions, conditions and limitations over contained in any such grant or transfer as aforesaid shall be valid and take effect according to their tenor, any rule of law, statute or enactment of the Legislature to the contrary notwithstanding.” Here the grant was renewed in the name of Shankarji Ka Mandir the deity up-till 31.03.2006. Apart from terms of the original grant, the rights and liabilities of a lessee would be governed by Sections 181 and 182 of the C.G. Land Revenue Code 1959. For the sake of brevity, sections 181 and 182 of the C.G. Land Revenue Code are reproduced: “181. Apart from terms of the original grant, the rights and liabilities of a lessee would be governed by Sections 181 and 182 of the C.G. Land Revenue Code 1959. For the sake of brevity, sections 181 and 182 of the C.G. Land Revenue Code are reproduced: “181. Government lessees: (1) Every person who holds land from the State Government or to whom a right to occupy land is granted by the State Government or to Collector and who is not entitled to hold land as a Bhumiswami shall be called a Government lessee in respect of such land. (2) Every person who at the coming into force of this Code: (a) holds any land in the Madhya Bharat region as an ordinary tenant as defined in the Madhya Bharat Land Revenue and Tenancy Act, Samvat 2007 (66 of 1950). (b) holds any land in the Vindhya Pradesh region as a special tenant as defined in the Vindhya Pradesh Land Revenue and Tenancy Act, 1953 (III of 1955), or as a gair haqdar tenant any grove or tank or land which has been acquired or which is required for Government or public purposes. (c) holds any land from the State Government in the Sironj region as a gair khatedar tenant as defined in the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (3 of 1955) shall be deemed to be a Government lessee in respect of such land. 182. Rights and liabilities of a Government lessee: (1) A Government lessee shall, subject to any express provisions in this Code, hold his land in accordance with the terms and conditions of the grant, which shall be deemed to be a grant within the meaning of the Government Grants Act, 1895 (XV of 1895). (2) A Government lessee may be ejected from his land by order of a Revenue Officer on one or more of the following grounds, namely: (i) that he has failed to pay the rent for a period of three months from the date on which it became due. (ii) that he has used such land for purposes other than for which it was granted. (iii) that the term of his lease has expired. (ii) that he has used such land for purposes other than for which it was granted. (iii) that the term of his lease has expired. (iv) that he has contravened any of the terms and conditions of the grant: Provided that no order for ejectment of a Government lessee under this sub-section shall be passed without giving him an opportunity of being heard in his defence.” 16. A perusal of the lease deed Ex.D-4 would show that the lease was granted to the deity by the State wherein Kundan Lal Maharaj was shown as Prabhandhak (Manager). The submission of the appellant that the Will which has a limited operation and purpose is exhausted with death of trustee, as appointment of new trustees was a conditional and contingent and cannot be co-related with grant of lease Ex.D-4. When the documents Ex.D-1 and D-4 are read together, it shows that lease was given in the name of Mahadev Temple the deity wherein Kundan Maharaj was shown as Prabhandak (Manager). By such Will the testator had bequeathed his rights to manage the management of temple to trustee, which shows the management rights were bestowed on trustees. Whether such grant can be narrowed down for individual interest? The answer is in negative following the principles laid down in State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Bansi Dhar and Others, AIR 1974 SC 1084 , where in the Supreme Court held that we are inclined to view that both the testamentary and non-testamentary gifts for public charitable purposes must be saved by a wider intervention of Court, for public interest is served that way. The Supreme Court further held that neither principle nor precedent bars this broader invocation of Court’s beneficent jurisdiction. But there are two other limitations on the “cypress doctrine” which come into play here. Where the donor has determined with a specificity a special object or mode for the course of his benefaction the court cannot innovate and undo, but where a general charitable goal is projected and particular objects and modes are indicated, the Court would act to fulfill the broader benevolence of the donor and to avert the frustration of the good to the community, would reconstruct as nearly as may be, the charitable intent and would make it viable what otherwise may die. 17. 17. Reading of Ex.D-1 would show that the management of Shiv Temple was given to 7 people of Goand Brahman Mahasabha to manage the affairs and construct the Dharmashala therein and further to manage the same. Such statement of grant shows the charitable intent and the evidence of DW-1 at Para-15 shows that a Dharmashala has been constructed over the site by collecting donations. The evidence by document and oral evidence would show that the religious endowment was created. The Supreme Court in Profulla Chorone Requitte vs. Satya Chorone Requitte, (1979) 3 SCC 409 has observed that in case of like nature, when the management has been bestowed with by way of Will, it would be in the nature of human ministrant and custodian of the idol entitled to deal with all its temporal affairs and to manage its property. The Court further held that as regards the service of the temple and the duties that appertain to it, shebaitship is an office blended with property and as such, apart from the obligations and duties resting on him in connection with the endowment, the shebait has a personal interest in the endowed property. 18. In the present case, the grant was in the name of Shankarji Ka Mandir and the administrator was shown as Kundan Lal Sharma. Therefore, his position would be that of a Shebait who is the human ministrant and custodian of the idol, entitled to deal with all its temporal affairs and to manage its property. He has, to some extent, the rights of a limited owner to the extent to manage and Shebaitship being the property, it devolves like any other species of heritable property. Kundalal Sharma executed the Will being the ministrant and custodian of the idol and the property being heritable by way of Ex.D-1 the management of the temple was passed on to 7 people. Therefore that right cannot be undone subsequently. 19. The text of the Will Deed Ex.D-1 purports to divest the ownership from executant that is the heritable right of the Manager and his legal heirs. The property has been reserved for charitable purpose and it has been passed on to others. The statements of Witnesses DW-1, DW-2 and DW-3 would show that the construction of Dharmashal was carried out over the part and parcel of land. The property has been reserved for charitable purpose and it has been passed on to others. The statements of Witnesses DW-1, DW-2 and DW-3 would show that the construction of Dharmashal was carried out over the part and parcel of land. Admittedly, the Trust is not registered under the C.G. Public Trust Act, 1951 and it has been claimed to be a private Trust. Now the question looms large whether it would be governed by Indian Trusts Act, 1882 ? In this context, the evidence adduced by the defendant and the plaintiff both would lead to show that general public at large are allowed to make prayers and give offers by visiting temple and it is not confined to a particular class of people. 20. The Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court has laid down the distinction between the public and private charity in case of Mahant Ram Saroop Dasji vs. S.P. Sahi, 1959 AIR 942 wherein it has been held that the essential distinction in Hindu law between religious endowments which are public and those which are private is that in a public trust the beneficial interest is vested in an uncertain and fluctuating body of persons, either the public at large or some considerable portion of it answering particular description; in a private trust the beneficiaries are definite and ascertained individuals. In the instant case, the facts and evidence would show that Dharmashala has been constructed over a part and parcel of the said land and general public at large are allowed to make their prayers and give offers, which by its nature would make it a public trust. This proposition has been reiterated by the Supreme Court in Idol of Sri Renganathaswamy vs. P.K. Thoppulan Chettiar, Ramanuja Koodam Anandhana Trust, (2020) 17 SCC 96 . At Para-19, the Court further held thus: “19. Where the beneficiaries of a trust or charity are limited to a finite group of identifiable individuals, the trust or charity is of a private character and fluctuating body of persons incapable of being specifically identifiable, the trust or charity is of a public character. This test has been consistently followed by subsequent Benches of this Court, most recently in a three-Judge Bench Endowment Administration (2019) 8 SCC 689 . This test has been consistently followed by subsequent Benches of this Court, most recently in a three-Judge Bench Endowment Administration (2019) 8 SCC 689 . In the present case, the deed of settlement states that the charity is to be carried for a benefit of the “devotees” who visit during certain Hindu religious festivals. The charity is one which benefits the public and the beneficial interest is created in an uncertain and fluctuating body of persons. The “devotees” as a class of beneficiaries are not definitive and therefore, the respondent trust is a public trust.” 21. Having held that the deity Shankarji Ka Mandir in this case is a public trust by its very nature, the terms of endowment specifically mandates that on death of trustees the subsequent trustee would be appointed by majority. Before filing of suit and after, except one, the other trustees have died. There is nothing on record to show that those mandates of trust were carried out by the remaining trustees. Though submission has been made that the Trust has been created, but apparently no document is placed before us to appreciate the same.” 22. The Supreme Court in Shiromani Gurdwara Prabandhak Committee vs. Som Nath Dass, (2000) 4 SCC 146 held that once the endowment is made, it is final and irrevocable. At Para-35, the Court held that no endowment or a juristic person depends on the appointment of a manager. It may be proper or advisable to appoint such manager while making any endowment but in its absence, it may be done either by the trustees or courts in accordance with law. Mere absence of a manager (sic does not) negative the existence of a juristic person. Relying on a case law laid down in Manohar Ganesh vs. Lakhmiram, ILR (1888) 12 Bom. 247 and Yogendra Nath Naskar vs. CIT, (1969) 1 SCC 555 the Court observed that if no manager is appointed by the founder, the ruler would give effect to the bounty. Further relying on a decision in Vidyapurna Tirtha Swami vs. Vidyanidhi Tirtha Swami Mad, ILR (1903-05) Mad. 247 and Yogendra Nath Naskar vs. CIT, (1969) 1 SCC 555 the Court observed that if no manager is appointed by the founder, the ruler would give effect to the bounty. Further relying on a decision in Vidyapurna Tirtha Swami vs. Vidyanidhi Tirtha Swami Mad, ILR (1903-05) Mad. 435 by Bhashyam Ayyangar, J (approved in Yogendra Nath Naskar case), the Court observed that the property given in trust becomes irrecovable and if none was appointed to manage, it would be managed by the “court as representing the sovereign.” This can be done by the court in several ways under Section 92 CPC or by handing over management to any specific body recognised by law. But the trust will not be allowed by the court to fail. Endowment is when the donor parts with his property for it being used for a public purpose and its entrustment is to a person or group of persons in trust for carrying out the objective of such entrustment. Once the endowment is made, it is final and it is irrevocable. The Court further held that it is the onerous duty of the persons entrusted with such endowment to carry out the objectives of this entrustment. They may appoint a manager in the absence of any indication in the trust or get it appointed through court. So, if entrustment is to any juristic person, mere absence of a manager would not negate the existence of the juristic person. 23. In Chandan vs. Longa Bai, 1998 (2) MPLJ 125 the Madhya Pradesh High Court held thus: “43. Under section 11 of the M.P. Public Trust Act, 1951, a provision has been made for public trust by Will. It has been provided that in case of the public trust which is created by a will, the executor of such Will shall within one month from the date on which the probate of the Will is granted or within six months from the date of the attestator’s death, make an application for the registration of the Trust in the manner provided in section 4 of the Act. The provision of section 4 shows that it relates for registration of public trust. Section 5 of the Act provides for an enquiry for registration. The provision of section 4 shows that it relates for registration of public trust. Section 5 of the Act provides for an enquiry for registration. On the receipt of an application u/s 4 as provided under section 4 or under section 11 referred to above or upon an application made by any person having interest in a public trust or on his own motion, the Registrar shall make an inquiry in the prescribed manner for the purpose of certain points. Thus, even if no application as provided under section 11 was moved and an application has been moved by a person having interest in a public trust, the Registrar is bound to make an inquiry. In the present case, the inquiry was made and the Registrar had given a finding vide order dated 14.07.1969..........” 24. In view of the above discussion, we in exercise of power under Section 92 of the code of Civil Procedure direct the Registrar, Public Trust to hold an enquiry and proceed in accordance with the provisions of the Chhattisgarh Public Trust Act, 1951 for registration and appointment of trustees and carry out ancillary functions thereof till the trust is registered. 25. With the above observations/direction, this appeal stands disposed off. Accordingly, a decree be drawn.