MEHTA VHARITY TRUST Vs. GULAM RASOOL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two revision petitions arise out of two orders passed by the District Judge, Pali in the same suit deciding issues Nos. 7, 8 and 9 by the order dated October 5, 1979. The learned District Judge decided issue No. 8 and held that the plaintiffs' suit was not barred by limitation. Issues No. 7 and 9 were decided by the learned District Judge by his order dated October 9, 1979 holding that the suit filed by the plaintiffs was maintainable and the suit was not barred by limitation.

(2.) IT appears that the defendant No. 1 the Mehta Charity Trust got the aforesaid Trust registered as a Public Trust under Section 19 of the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959. The Asst. Commissioner, Devasthan Rajasthan by his order dated September 12, 1975 directed that the Trust be registered and in accordance with the finding recorded by him under Section 19 entries were made in the Register of Public Trusts under Section 21 of the Act on September 22, 1975. Noor Mohammed and Mst. Marium contested the title of the Trust in respect of the land in dispute in the present suit, out of which these revision petitions arise but their objections were rejected by the Assistant Commissioner. Noor Mohammed filed an appeal against the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner under Section 19 but the appeal was dismissed by the Commissioner Devasthan Department, Rajasthan, Udaipur on September 27, 1976. Thereafter, the present suit was filed by the Gulam Rasool and Mst. Marium under Section 22 of the Act for cancellation of the entry No. 133 dated September 12, 1975 recording registry of the Mehta Charity Trust, Pali. The defendants in their written statement took several objections and claimed that the land which was alleged to be belonging to the Mehta Charity Trust, was the property of the defendants. They also took the objection that the suit was barred by limitation as the same was not filed within six months from the date of publication of the entry under Section 21 by the Assistant Commissioner and that the plaintiffs cannot get any benefit in respect of limitation, for period upto decision of the appeal, if they did not file any appeal against the order dated September 12,1985 by the Assistant Commissioner. One important objection which was taken by the defendant -petitioners was that the plaintiffs claimed the interest in the land in dispute adverse to the Trust and as such they are not entitled to maintain the suit under Section 22 of the Act. The last mentioned objection is subject matter of issue No. 9. As mentioned above, the learned District Judge decided issue No. 9 in favour of the plaintiffs as also issues Nos. 7 and 8 which relate to the question of limitation.

(3.) AFTER the Assistant Commissioner makes an enquiry in respect of an application for registration of a public trust and when he records a finding that the trust deserves to be registered and passes an order under Section 19 of the Act, thereafter he is empowered under Section 19 of the Act to cause entries to be made in the register of public trust in accordance with his finding recorded under Section 19 and then a notice containing the entries made in the Register have to be published on a notice board of the office of the Assistant Commissioner and a conspicuous place in the city, town or village where the principal office or the principal place of business of the public trust is situate. The right to file a civil suit in respect of the entries made in the Register under Section 21 as a consequence of the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner under Section 19 is confined to any working trustee or person having interest in a public trust or in any property found to be trust property would also include within its ambit persons who have interest adverse to the public trust. Can persons who claim property entered as Trust property as their own which has been entered as trust property under Section 21 maintain the suit under Section 22?