The Madhya Pradesh High Court has clarified that an unregistered public trust cannot maintain a suit for eviction under the M.P. Accommodation Control Act until it complies with mandatory registration under the M.P. Public Trusts Act, 1951. The Court emphasized that the statutory bar under Section 32 operates only on the court’s jurisdiction to hear and decide such suits, not on the right to file them. Once registration is obtained, the bar is lifted and the suit must be adjudicated afresh on the existing evidence.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The plaintiffs, Devmurti Shri Janki Bhallabh Ji & Others, filed Civil Suit No. 05A/2002 before the Tenth Additional District Judge (Fast Track) Court, Gwalior, seeking eviction of the defendants under Section 12(1)(a), (c), and (i) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act. The plaintiffs claimed to be trustees of a public trust managing religious property. The defendants contested the suit on multiple grounds, including that the plaintiffs were an unregistered public trust and therefore lacked legal capacity to sue.
Key Facts
- The plaintiffs filed the suit on 15.01.2002 as an unregistered public trust
- The suit was filed seeking eviction of tenants occupying property held by the trust
- The trust had not been registered under the M.P. Public Trusts Act, 1951 at the time of filing
- On 29.06.2018, the Registrar of Public Trusts, Gwalior, issued an order registering the trust under Case No. 07/2016-17/B-113(1)
- The appellants filed I.A. No. 1183/2023 under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC to produce the registration order dated 29.06.2018
- The respondents challenged the registration by filing a review petition against the 29.06.2018 order, which was pending at the time of appeal
- The trial court dismissed the suit on 05.03.2004 solely on the ground that the trust was unregistered and Section 32 of the M.P. Public Trusts Act barred the suit
- The trial court also recorded findings on the merits of eviction, despite lacking jurisdiction
Procedural History
- 15.01.2002: Civil Suit No. 05A/2002 filed by unregistered public trust
- 05.03.2004: Trial Court dismissed suit under Section 32 of M.P. Public Trusts Act, 1951
- 05.03.2004: Trial Court additionally recorded findings on eviction grounds
- 29.06.2018: Registrar of Public Trusts registered the trust (Order dated 29.06.2018)
- 12.08.2023: Appellants filed I.A. No. 1183/2023 under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC to add registration order as evidence
- 23.03.2026: First Appeal No. 230 of 2004 heard before Division Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court at Gwalior
The Parties' Positions
For the Appellants
- Argued that Section 32 only bars courts from hearing or deciding suits by unregistered trusts, not from receiving them
- Relied on Pooranchand v. Idol, Shri Radhakrishnaji (1978 MPLJ 660) and Public Trust Shri Geeta Satsang Bhawan v. Nand Lal (2017 SC 901)
- Submitted that registration on 29.06.2018 lifted the statutory bar
- Contended that findings on eviction by the trial court were null and void due to lack of jurisdiction
- Requested that the registration order be admitted as evidence and the suit be remanded for fresh adjudication on existing record
For the Respondents
- Opposed admission of the registration order, citing pending review petition against the 29.06.2018 order
- Argued that the review petition, even if pending, rendered the registration uncertain
- Maintained that the trial court’s dismissal on jurisdictional grounds was correct and its findings on merits were valid
- Contended that the suit should remain dismissed
Relief Sought
The appellants sought: (1) setting aside of the trial court’s judgment dated 05.03.2004; (2) admission of the registration order dated 29.06.2018; (3) remand of the suit to the trial court for fresh adjudication on the basis of evidence already recorded; and (4) direction that no fresh evidence be permitted.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether Section 32 of the M.P. Public Trusts Act, 1951 operates as a complete bar to the institution of a suit by an unregistered public trust, or whether it only prohibits courts from hearing and deciding such suits until registration is completed.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant
The appellants relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Public Trust Shri Geeta Satsang Bhawan v. Nand Lal (2017 SC 901), which interpreted a nearly identical provision under Section 29 of the Rajasthan Public Trusts Act. They argued that the bar under Section 32 is procedural and jurisdictional, not substantive. The Court’s jurisdiction is suspended until registration, but the suit remains pending and can proceed upon compliance. They emphasized that the registration order dated 29.06.2018 had been issued and was not stayed, and therefore the bar had been lifted. They further contended that any findings recorded by the trial court on merits were nullities and could not be relied upon.
For the Respondent
The respondents argued that the pendency of the review petition against the registration order created uncertainty about the trust’s legal status. They contended that until the review was decided, the registration could be set aside, and therefore the bar under Section 32 remained operative. They also argued that the trial court’s findings on eviction, though recorded in error, were not legally irrelevant and could be considered on appeal.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the language of Section 32 of the M.P. Public Trusts Act, 1951, which states: "No suit to enforce a right on behalf of an unregistered public trust can be heard or decided by any court." The Court noted that this mirrors the language of Section 29 of the Rajasthan Act, which the Supreme Court had interpreted in Nand Lal (supra). The Supreme Court held that such a provision creates a bar only to "hearing and deciding" the suit, not to its filing.
"Section 29 creates a bar 'for hearing and deciding a suit' filed by the public Trust for enforcement of any of their rights, if the said Trust is not registered under the Act. The bar, therefore, applies for 'hearing and deciding a suit' and not in filing the suit."
The Court applied this reasoning to Section 32, holding that the trial court erred in dismissing the suit outright. Instead, it should have stayed proceedings and directed the plaintiffs to obtain registration. Once registration was obtained on 29.06.2018, the jurisdictional bar ceased to operate.
The Court further held that the trial court’s recording of findings on eviction was legally impermissible. Since the court lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate the suit at the time, those findings were nullities and could not be used as a basis for any decision. The respondents’ pending review petition did not invalidate the registration order unless and until it was set aside. Mere pendency of review does not operate as a stay.
The Court concluded that the suit must be remanded for fresh adjudication on the basis of evidence already recorded, without reference to the trial court’s earlier findings.
The Verdict
The First Appeal was allowed. The judgment and decree dated 05.03.2004 of the trial court were set aside. The matter was remanded to the Tenth Additional District Judge (Fast Track) Court, Gwalior, for fresh adjudication of the suit on the basis of evidence already recorded. No fresh evidence shall be permitted. The trial court is directed to mark the registration order dated 29.06.2018 as an exhibit without requiring further proof. The suit shall be decided within six months from the date of first appearance, fixed for 21.04.2026.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Jurisdictional Bar Is Procedural, Not Absolute
- Practitioners must distinguish between a suit’s maintainability and its adjudicatory jurisdiction
- A suit filed by an unregistered public trust is not void ab initio - it is merely suspended until registration
- Courts must stay proceedings and direct registration, not dismiss outright
Findings on Merits Are Nullities Without Jurisdiction
- Any findings recorded by a court lacking jurisdiction under Section 32 are legally invalid
- Such findings cannot be cited as precedent or relied upon in appellate review
- Appellate courts must remand for fresh hearing, not affirm on merits
Registration Order Prevails Unless Stayed
-
A registration order issued by the Registrar is presumed valid until set aside by a competent authority
-
Pendency of a review petition does not suspend the effect of the order
-
Courts may rely on such orders unless a stay is expressly granted
-
Practitioners should immediately file applications under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC to produce registration orders once obtained
-
In eviction suits involving religious trusts, registration status must be verified at the earliest stage
-
Courts must avoid deciding merits in cases where jurisdiction is defective - remand is the only lawful course
