ivil Appeal No 871 of 1962
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and decree dated August 13 1959 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Second Appeal No 294 of 1959
SP Sinha and M 1
Khowaja for the appellant
ST Desai and A G Ratnaparkhi for the respondent
This appeal arises from a suit filed by the appellants who are the representatives of residents of Nayapara Ward in particular and of the Muslim community of Raipur in general in which they claimed an injunction restraining the respondent Municipal Committee of Raipur from committing acts of encroachment on their rights and the rights of 301 the Muslim community in holding Urs and other ceremonies on the plot in suit
It appears that at Raipur there is a piece of land called Fazle Karim s Bada Khasra No 649 measuring 462 acres
Inside this Bada there are three or four Municipal Schools
The office of the Electric Power House is also located in one corner of the land
Behind the School there is a Pakka platform known as Syed Baba s Mazar
Near the Electric Power House there is a raised earth platform on which there is a flag
This flag is called Madar Sahib s Jhanda
Surrounding this land
there is a brick wall which was made by the respondent several years past
According to the plaint Urs function is held every year in front of Syed Baba s Mazar for the last several years
On or about the 22nd October 1956 the employees of the respondent started digging foundation at the places A B C and D shown on the map attached to the plaint
These digging operations were commenced under the directions of the respondent
because the respondent intended to construct another school building on the plot
The appellants then served a notice on the respondent to desist from carrying on the digging operations on the ground that the property on which the said operations were being carried out was a part of the wakf property
When the respondent did not comply with the requisition contained in the said notice the present suit was filed by the appellants on October 29 1956
This suit has been flied under O1 r 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure
The case of the appellants is that the plot of land in suit was old Kabrasthan known as Chuchu s Takia and is a permanent inalienable wakf property
On this plot are tombs of renowned saints like Syed Baba
and Madar Sahib s Jhanda
On a part of the plot
every year Urs and other religious functions are performed
In fact the land has been registered under the Madhya Pradesh Public Trusts Act No 30 of 1951 hereinafter called the Act as trust property as such the respondent can claim no right or title to the said land
That is the basis on which the appellants claimed injunction against the respondent
The respondent disputed this claim
It was urged in the written statement filed by the respondent that the land was never and could never be wakf property
There was no tomb on the land
There are only two so called tombs
but they have no significance
The Urs is of very recent origin and it is allowed to be held with the licence of the respondent
The plot originally belonged to private persons and had been acquired by the Government in land acquisition proceedings in 1910 11
The respondent got the said land from the Government in 1922
In 1932 33
the Deputy Commissioner fixed rent of the land which is being paid by the respondent eversince
On this land the respondent has constructed some schools and a part of the land which is lying vacant is allowed to be used by the people of the neighbourhood for traffic
The respondent thus has full right to 302 construct on its own plot of land
The representative character of the appellants was disputed by the respondent and their right to file the present suit was challenged
On these pleadings several
issues were framed by the learned trial Judge
They covered the title of appellants the title of the respondent and the right of the appellants to file the suit
The issue with which we are concerned in the present appeal related to the registration of the plot in the register kept under the relevant provisions of the Act and its effect
The appellants  contention was that the said registration was conclusive against the respondent and in favour of the appellants  claim
This contention was rejected by the trial Judge with the result that the appellants  suit was dismissed
With the findings recorded by the learned trial Judge on the other issues we are not concerned in the present appeal
The matter then went in appeal
and the appellate Court confirmed the conclusions recorded by the trial Court and dismissed the appeal
The appellants challenged the correctness of the said appellate decree by preferring a second appeal in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh
but the second appeal also failed
and that has brought the appellants to this Court by special leave
Thus it would be noticed that the appellants have failed on the merits of their claim in all the courts below
and the technical point raised by them that the registration of the plot under the relevant provisions of the Act concluded the matter
has also been rejected
It is this last point which has been urged before us by Mr Sinha on behalf of the appellants
Before we deal with this point
however it would be relevant to mention how the property came to be entered in the register kept under the relevant provisions of the Act
The record shows that the Masjid Nayapara
Raipur had been entered in the register as a public trust on June 25
1954 in Case No 23XXXiii7 of 1952 53
certain properties were entered in the said register in respect of this trust
In 1956
Abdul Karim
Mutawali Masjid Naypara Raipur applied to the SubDivisional Officer
Raipur alleging that the property now in suit also belonged to the public trust and should be included amongst its properties
On this application public notice was issued calling upon persons interested in the property to show cause why it should not be added to the properties of the wakf
No objection was
however
received and on October 23
the Sub Divisional Officer reported that the poperty be shown against the trust
The said report was sanctioned by the Registrar
Public Trusts on April 22
That is how the property came to be registered as belonging to the public trust
and it is on this entry that the whole argument of the appellants is based
In considering the validity of the contention raised by Mr Sinha before us
it is necessary to examine broadly the scheme 303 of the Act and the material provisions on which Mr Sinha relies
The Act was passed in 1951 to regulate and to make better provision for the administration of public religious and charitable trusts in the State of Madhya Pradesh
Section 24 of the Act defines a public trust and section 28 defines a wakf Working trustee  is defined by section 29
Section 31 provides that the Deputy Commissioner shall be the Registrar of public trusts in respect of every public trust and section 32 imposes on the Registrar the obligation to maintain a register of public trusts and such other books and registers and in such form as may be prescribed
Section 41 deals with the registration of public trusts and in requires that within three months from the date on which the said 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
Section 43 lays down the particulars which have to be stated by the application which is required to be made under section 41
All these particulars are in relation to the nature of the trust its properties the mode of succession to the office of the trustees and other allied matters
Section 44 empowers the Registrar to decide the merits of the application while section 45 provides for an appeal against his decision which is required to be filed within 30 days of the order
Mr Sinha relies on a specific provision contained in section 45 which says that subject to the decision in such appeal
the order of the Registrar under sub section 4 shall be final
Section 46 requires the signing and verification of the application in the manner laid down in the code of Civil Procedure for signing and verifying plaints
That takes us to section 5 which deals with the enquiry to be held by the Registrar on the application made before him under section 41
Eight points are set down under section 51 which the Registrar has to consider
Section 52 lays down that the Registrar shall give in the prescribed manner public notice of the inquiry 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
Under section 6 the Registrar has to make his findings on the point specified by section 51 and under section 7 the Registrar causes entries to be made in the Register in accordance with his findings
Section 72 naturally lays down that the entries made under section 71 shall be final and conclusive
Section 81 allows a civil suit to be filed against the findings of the Registrar within six months from the date of the publication of the notice under section 72 such a suit can be filed by a working trustee or a person having interest in a public trust or any property found to be trust property
Section 9 permits applications to be made for change in the entries recorded in the register
It will be recalled that the application which was made in 1956 by Abdul Karim was under the provisions of section 91
If an application is made for change in 304 the entries as far instance for adding to the list of properties belonging to the trust a proceeding has to be taken for making the said change and this is prescribed by section 92
Section 93 makes the provisions of section 8 applicable to any finding under section 9 as they would apply to a finding under section 6
These provisions are contained in Chapter II of the Act
Chapter III deals with the management of trust property Ch
IV with the problem of audit Ch
V with control and Ch
VI contains miscellaneous provisions including section 35 which confers the rule making power on the State Government
That broadly stated is the nature of the scheme of the Act and the material provisions which fall to be considered in the present appeal
Mr Sinha relies on the fact that under section 45 of the Act the decision of the Registrar is made final subject to the appellate decision if any and he also refers to the right of instituting a suit reserved by section 8
His argument is that if any person who claims interest in the property which is alleged to be trust property fails to satisfy the Registrar about his claim he can file a suit under section 81
Section 81 allows a suit to be filed subject to the conditions prescribed by it and the right to file such a suit is given to a working trustee or a person having interest in a public trust or any property found to be trust property
The respondent is interested in the property in suit which is found to be trust property and since it did not avail itself of the right to file a suit within the specified time the order passed by the Registrar must be held to be final and conclusive against its claim
If finality does not attach to such an order even after six months have expired within the meaning of section 81 then the provision contained in section 45 will serve no purpose whatever
That is the manner in which Mr Sinha has presented his case before us
We are not impressed by this argument
In testing the validity of this argument we must bear in mind the important fact that the Act is concerned with the registration of public religious and charitable trusts in the State of Madhya Pradesh and the enquiry which its relevant provisions contemplate is an enquiry into the question as to whether the trust in question is public or private
The enquiry permitted by the said provisions does not take within its sweep questions as to whether the property belongs to a private individual and is not the subject matter of any trust at all
It cannot be ignored that the Registrar who no doubt is given the powers of a civil court under section 28 of the Act holds a kind of summary enquiry and the points which can fall within his jurisdiction are indicated by clauses i to x of section 43
Therefore prima facie
it appears unreasonable to suggest that contested questions of title such as those which have arisen in the present case can be said to fall within the enquiry which the Registrar is authorised to hold under section 5 of the Act
Besides it is significant that the only persons who are required to file their objections in response to a notice issued by the 305 Registrar on receiving an application made under section 41 are persons interested in the public trust not persons who dispute the existence of the trust or who challenge the allegation that any property belongs to the said trust
It is only persons interested in the public trust such as beneficiaries or others who claim a right to manage the trust who can file objections and it is objections of this character proceeding from persons belonging to this limited class that fall to be considered by the Registrar
It cannot be said that the respondent falls within this class and so it would be idle to contend that it was the duty of the respondent to have filed objections under section 32
It is true section 81 permits a suit to be filed by a person having interest in the public trust or any preperty found to be trust property
The interest to which this section refers must be read in the light of section 52to be the interest of a beneficiary or the interest of a person who claims the right to maintain the trust or any other interest of a similar character
It is not the interest which is adverse to the trust set up by a party who does not claim any relation with the trust at all
That is why we think the finality on which Mr Sinha s argument is based cannot avail him against the respondent inasmuch the respondent was not a party to the proceedings and could not have filed any objections in the said proceedings
Then again the right to file a suit to which section 81 refers is given to persons who are aggrieved by any finding of the Registrar
Having regard to the fact that the proceedings before the Registrar are in the nature of proceedings before a civil court it would be illogical to hold that the respondent who was not a party to the proceedings can be said to be aggrieved by the findings of the Registrar
The normal judicial concept of a person aggrieved by any order necessarily postulates that the said person must be a party to the proceedings in which the order was passed and by which he feels aggrieved
It is unnecessary to emphasise that it would be plainly unreasonable to assume that though a person is not a party to the proceedings and cannot participate in them by way of filing objections he would still be bound to file a suit within the period prescribed by section 81 if the property in which he claims an exclusive title is held by the Registrar to belong to a public trust
Similarly the right to prefer an appeal against the Registrar s order prescribed by section 45 necessarily implies that the person must be a party to the proceedings before the Registrar otherwise how would he know about the order Like section 81 section 45 also seems to be confined in its operation to persons who are before the Registrar or who could have appeared before the Registrar under section 52
The whole scheme is clear the Registrar enquires into the question as to whether a trust is private or public 306 and deals with the points specifically enumerated by section 43
Therefore we have no hesitation in holding that the courts below were right in coming to the conclusion that the fact that the property now in suit was added to the list of properties belonging to the wakf cannot affect the respondent s title to it
On the merits all the courts below have rejected the appellants  case and have upheld the pleas raised by the respondent in defence
The result is the appeal fails and is dismissed with costs
Appeal dismissed


Summary:
The first appellant who was the Mutawalli of a public trust filed a representative suit for an injunction restraining the respondent from committing acts of encroachment on the suit property on the ground that the property was that of the trust and had been so registered by the Registrar of Public Trusts under the Madhya Pradesh Public Trusts Act 1951
The suit was dismissed by the trial court and also on appeal
In their appeal to the Supreme Court the appellants contended that since the respondent did not avail itself of the right to file a suit within the specified time the order passed by the Registrar must be held to be final and conclusive against the respondent
HELD The fact that the property in suit was added to the list of the properties belonging to the trust could not affect the respondent s title to it
306 A B The enquiry which the Act contemplates is an enquiry into the question as to whether a trust is public or private and does not take within its sweep questions as to whether a property belongs to a private individual and is not the subject matter of any trust at all
The only persons who are required to file their objections in proceedings before the Registrar are persons interested in the public trust not persons who dispute the existence of the trust or who challenge the allegation that any property belongs to the said trust
Inasmuch as the respondent was not a party to the proceedings and could not have filed any objections in the proceedings the respondent was not bound to file an appeal under section 45 of the Act or a suit under section 81 challenging order of the Registrar
Therefore the finality given to the finding of the Registrar could not be availed of by the appellant as against the respondent
304 G 305 A B D E