ORDER : (Rakesh Mohan Pandey, J.) This appeal was admitted for consideration on the following substantial question of law dated 11.07.2023:- "Whether the learned trial Court has committed an error of law in holding that the suit property is the property of public trust whereas the trust is a private trust and therefore the Collector cannot be appointed as its manager?" 2. Plaintiffs/appellants had filed a suit for declaration of title and injunction inter alia on the ground that a temple namely, 'Shri. Ramchandra Ji Temple' is situated at village Kurud, Tahsil - Kurud, District - Dhamtari (C.G), which was constructed by the ancestors of plaintiff No. 2/appellant No. 2, namely, Mahant Udhodas in the year 1753. The agricultural land bearing survey Nos. 200, 201, 312, 315, 323/15, 499, 819, measuring a total of 18.14 acres, was also part of the temple. It is further pleaded that plaintiff No. 1 was Sarvarakar of the temple and his name was recorded in the revenue records. After the death of Udhodas, his son Harbhajan Das, and after the death of Harbhajan Das, Gopaldas, after the death of Gopal Das, Damodar Das then Narayan Das then Narsingh Das and after the death of Narsingh Das the appellant No. 2/Chudamani Das became Sarvarakar of the Temple. Chudamani Das also expired during the pendency of the civil suit. It is further pleaded that without the issuance of a notice, the name of the Collector was entered into the revenue records as a Manager of 'Shri. Ramchandra Ji Temple'. It is further pleaded that the temple is a private temple; therefore, the Collector cannot be recorded as a Manager in the revenue records. The defendants did not turn up therefore they were proceeded ex-parte. 3. The learned trial Court held that the plaintiffs were never recorded as the owner of the suit property, but in the revenue records their status are recorded as Sarvarakar. It is further held by the learned trial Court that according to provisions of section 122 of the Transfer of Property Act, after the gift, the donor has no right over the property which he donated. In the present case, the property was donated by Udhaodas and the plaintiffs were recorded as Sarvarakar in the revenue record, therefore, they have no right over the suit property. Therefore, the learned first appellate Court affirmed the findings recorded by the learned trial Court. In the present case, the property was donated by Udhaodas and the plaintiffs were recorded as Sarvarakar in the revenue record, therefore, they have no right over the suit property. Therefore, the learned first appellate Court affirmed the findings recorded by the learned trial Court. Thereafter, the instant appeal has been preferred by the appellants/plaintiffs before this Court. 4. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs/appellants would submit that undisputedly, the aforesaid temple is a private temple, and therefore, the circular issued by the erstwhile State Government of M.P. would not be applicable, and the Collector cannot be recorded as the Manager where the temple is a private temple. He would further argue that the plaintiffs have not claimed right over the suit property in their plaint, but the learned Courts below misunderstood the pleadings. He would also argue that the plaintiff has sought relief to delete the name of the Collector as Manager from the revenue records. 5. In support thereof, he has placed reliance on the judgment passed by this Court in WP 227 No. 880 of 2015, Radha Krishna Mandir v. Ramkhilawan Sahu and others where it was held as under:- "8. On perusal of the order dated 09.07.1998 passed by the S.D.O./Registrar/Public Trust in case No.02/B/113(4) year 1995-96. The learned Registrar has observed that there are ingredients to show that the Radha Krishna Mandir is a private trust, vis-a-vis that the statue of the idol has been purchased and established by the Sarvarakar of that temple and similarly, the temple was constructed about 40 years before that date, and the expenditure was made by the Sarwarakar of the same temple. It was also observed that the land belonging to temple was also purchased by the Sarvarakar of the same temple from the vendor Nathuram Brahaman on 03.02.1965, apart from that the temple is situated in the boundaries of the house of the Sarvarakar himself. This order has not been challenged because of which it has attained finality and on this basis, it can be said that the status of the petitioner temple still holds to be a private trust. 9. The entry of the name of Collector along with Sarwarakar as Manager of the said trust is being disputed by the petitioner side for which the only reason or ground mentioned by the respondent side is the circular of the State Government dated 11.01.1988. 9. The entry of the name of Collector along with Sarwarakar as Manager of the said trust is being disputed by the petitioner side for which the only reason or ground mentioned by the respondent side is the circular of the State Government dated 11.01.1988. On plain reading of the said circular, it is very much clear that this circular and order of the State Governments speaks of the Government controlled temples and other religious institutions and not the private temples and the private trusts. The view laid down by the M.P. High Court in Sadashiv Giri (Supra) still holds as it has been reiterated in the subsequent pronouncement made by the same Court. Therefore, it is found that the entry of the name of Collector as Manager along with Sarvarakar in the revenue records over the property of the petitioner temple is not in accordance with any provisions under C.G. Public Trust Act, 1951 and at the same time, is also not in accordance with the circular of the State Government dated 11.01.1988. Hence, the entry of the name of Collector as Manager along with the Sarvarakar in the revenue records is totally illegal. The orders passed by the revenue authorities and upheld by the Revenue Court are arbitrary as well as illegal, therefore not sustainable. Hence, this petition is allowed. The impugned order and the orders confirmed by the impugned order are set aside and it is directed that the name of the Collector entered as Manager along with Sarvarakar of Radha Krishna Mandir situated in village Sidhori be deleted from the revenue records within a period of one month from the date of passing of this order." 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State would oppose the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the appellants. Mr. Solapurkar would submit that from revenue records i.e. Ex. P/10 to Ex. P/14, it is quite vivid that the property belongs to the deity 'Shri. Ramchandra Ji Temple' and the ancestors of the plaintiffs were sons of Sarvarakar. He would further submit that by virtue of the circular issued by the erstwhile State of M.P. dated 11.01.1988, the name of the Collector was recorded as the Manager of the trust property. He would also submit that there is a concurrent finding recorded by the learned Courts below, therefore, the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 7. He would further submit that by virtue of the circular issued by the erstwhile State of M.P. dated 11.01.1988, the name of the Collector was recorded as the Manager of the trust property. He would also submit that there is a concurrent finding recorded by the learned Courts below, therefore, the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 7. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents available on the record. 8. From a perusal of the records, it is apparent that plaintiffs have sought relief to delete the name of Collector as Manager from the revenue records on the ground that the temple in question is a private temple, whereas, the learned Courts below have declined to grant relief of title in favour of the plaintiffs only on the ground that the ancestors of the plaintiffs were recorded as Sarvarakar of the temple in question. 9. Undisputedly, the suit temple was private property of Udhaodas which was constructed by him in the year 1753. The agricultural land attached to the temple remained in the name of the deity in the revenue records and ancestors of Udhav Das were recorded as Sarvarakar of the Temple. 10. The defendants did not file their written statement therefore they were proceeded ex-parte. No documentary and oral evidence were produced before the learned trial Court to establish the fact that the trust was a public trust. The plaintiffs have proved this fact that the temple and its property were the private property of Udhav Das and the names of their ancestors were recorded as Sarvarakar. It was also established that without initiating any proceedings and without affording any opportunity of hearing to the plaintiffs, the name of the Collector was recorded as the Manager of the aforesaid temple in the revenue records. 11. Section 2(4) of The Madhya Pradesh Public Trusts Act, 1951 talks of 'public trust'. It is reproduced herein below for ready reference:- 2(4) "public trust" means an express or constructive trust for a public, religious or charitable purposes and includes a temple, a math, a mosque, a church, a wakf or any other religious or charitable endowment and a society formed for a religious or charitable purpose; Section 4 provides for the Registration of Public Trusts and Section 5 provides for Inquiry for Registration which are as under:- 4. Registration of public trusts. Registration of public trusts. - (1) Within three months from the date on which this section comes into force in any area or from the date on which a public trust is created, whichever is later, the working trustee of every public trust shall, apply to the Registrar having jurisdiction for the registration of the public trust. (2) Such application shall be accompanied by such fees, if any, not exceeding five rupees as may be prescribed. (3) The application shall be in such form as may be prescribed and shall among other things contain the following particulars, namely,- (i) the origin, nature and object of the public trust; (ii) the place where the principal office or the principal place of business of the public trust is situate; (iii) the names and addresses of the working trustee and the manager; (iv) the mode of succession to the office of the trustees; (v) the list of the movable and immovable trust property in the [State] and such description and particulars as may be sufficient for the identification thereof; (vi) the approximate value of the movable and immovable property; (vii) the income derived from movable and immovable property and from any other source, if any, based on the gross annual income during the three years immediately preceding the date on which the application is made or of the period which has lapsed since the creation of trust whichever period is shorter and in the case of a newly created public trust the estimated income from such sources; (viii) amount of the average annual expenditure in connection with such public trust estimated on the expenditure incurred within the period to which the particulars under clause (vi) relate; (ix) the address to which any communication to the working trustee or manager in connection with the public trust may be sent; and (x) such other particulars as may be prescribed: 4 Provided that the rules may provide that in the case of any or all public trusts it shall not be necessary to give the particulars of the trust property of such value and such kind as may be specified therein. (4) No Registrar shall proceed with any application for the registration of a public trust in respect of which an application for registration has been filed previously before any other Registrar and the Registrar before whom the application was filed first shall decide which Registrar shall have jurisdiction to register the public trust. (5) Any appeal against the order of the Registrar under sub-section (4) may be filed within thirty days of the order before such officer as the State Government may, by notification, appoint, and subject to the decision in such appeal the order of the Registrar under sub-section (4) shall be final. (6) Every application made under sub-section (1) shall be signed and verified in accordance with the manner, laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), for signing and verifying plaints. It shall be accompanied by a copy of an instrument of trust if such instrument had been executed and in existence and where the trust property includes immovable property, about which record is kept, a copy of the entries relating to such property in such record of rights. 5. Inquiry for registration. - (1) On receipt of an application under Section 4 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 ascertaining, - (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 subsection (3) of Section 4. (2) The Registrar shall give in the prescribed manner public notice of the enquiry proposed to be made under sub-section (1) and invite all persons interested in the public trust under inquiry to prefer objections, if any, in respect of such trust. 12. Section 158(1)(b) of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 reads as under:- "158. (2) The Registrar shall give in the prescribed manner public notice of the enquiry proposed to be made under sub-section (1) and invite all persons interested in the public trust under inquiry to prefer objections, if any, in respect of such trust. 12. Section 158(1)(b) of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 reads as under:- "158. Bhumiswami.- [(1)] Every person who at the time of coming into force of this Code, belongs to any of the following classes shall be called a bhumiswami and shall have all the rights and be subject to all the liabilities conferred or imposed upon a bhumiswami by or under this Code, namely : - (a) ................ (b) every person in respect of land held by him in the Madhya Bharat region as a Pakka tenant or as a Muafidar, Inamdar or Concessional holder, as defined in the Madhya Bharat Land Revenue and Tenancy Act, Samvat, 2007 (66 of 1950);" 13. From a bare reading of the above, the provisions of The Madhya Pradesh Public Trusts Act, 1951, particularly, Sections 2(4), 4 and 5 apply to public trusts and a private temple is not covered by these provisions therefore, the Collector cannot manage private temples and the land belonging to a private temple cannot be treated as Government land. 14. For the foregoing discussion, and taking into consideration the evidence available on record, the substantial question of law is answered in favour of the plaintiffs/appellants and against the defendants. 15. Accordingly, the judgment and decree passed by the learned Courts below are hereby set aside and the suit is decreed. It is declared that the temple of Shri. Ramchandra Ji situated at village Kurud Tahsil - Kurud, District - Dhamtari (C.G) is the property of the private trust. It is directed that the name of the Collector as Manager of the trust property be deleted from the revenue records. The defendants are also restrained from interfering with the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs/appellants. 16. In the result, the instant second appeal is allowed. 17. A decree be drawn accordingly.