Mohammad Rafiq, J.1. This regular first appeal has been preferred by the appellants-plaintiffs against judgment and decree dated 27.02.2015 passed by Additional District Judge No. 1, Beawar(for short the trial court) whereby suit filed by the appellants for mandatory injunction and recovery of damages against respondent-defendant has been dismissed, being barred by law in view of the provisions contained under Order 7 Rule 11(d) CPC.

2. Facts giving rise to the present appeal are that appellants-plaintiffs filed a suit seeking mandatory injunction and recovery of damages against respondent-defendant inter alia stating therein that plaintiff is a private trust, which was constituted through Shri Diwanji S. Choudhary son of M. Choudhary resident of 8A, Nirmal Path, Ajmer Road, Jaipur by registered trust deed dated 22.01.2000 and he, thereafter, appointing himself as also Shri Florence Rathnam, Yeshram Rathnam and John Tito Rathnam, as its trustees. According to appellants-plaintiffs, Shri John Tito Rathnam was authorised to initiate legal proceedings on behalf of the trust. Defendant, Samuel Masih was appointed as District Evangelist. When he started interfering in the property of the trust and raised illegal constructions, a show cause notice dated 16.03.2010 was issued to him. Respondent-defendant, in pursuance of show cause notice, submitted his apology. Thereafter, respondent-defendant was again appointed as District Evangelist on 01.04.2011. On account of certain illegalities committed by respondent-defendant for using properties of the Church by defendant-respondent for his personal gain, appellants-plaintiffs had to file present suit, cause of action wherefore had arisen on 01.06.2013 when respondent-defendant was asked to hand over keys of the property. It was prayed that decree of mandatory injunction be passed and respondent-defendant be further directed to make payment of amount of Rs. 52,500/- as mesne profit and further mesne profit was also prayer for to be awarded. The suit was accompanied an application for temporary injunction wherein it was prayed that respondent-defendant be restrained from transferring the property to any other person and not to part with possession of the property in favour of any other person for its use and occupation and not to change nature and existing condition of the property till final decision of the suit.

3. Respondent-defendant filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC contending therein that the plaintiff was a public trust, which was constituted for welfare of the members of Masih Community, which was constituted on 22.01.2000. According to respondent-defendant, as per the provisions of Section 17 of the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959(for short the Act), it was mandatory for the public trust to be registered with the Assistant Commissioner, Devesthan, but the Executive Trustee of the Trust did not do so. Plaintiff-Trust has not been registered till date and it was an unregistered trust. According to Section 29 of the Act, an unregistered trust is not entitled to file and maintain a suit and the present suit, being barred by law, is liable to be dismissed. Besides, it was also submitted that plaintiffs have wrongly asserted that cause of action for filing suit arose on 01.06.2013 when defendant was called upon to hand over keys of the property after he was removed from the post of District Evangelist. In fact, respondent-defendant was not removed from the post of District Evangelist on the said date and was still discharging duties as District Evangelist and, therefore, no question of handing over keys of the property arose. Thus, the suit does not give rise to any cause of action in favour of appellants-plaintiffs to file and maintain the suit and the suit was, therefore, liable to be rejected in view of the provisions of Order 7 Rule 11(a) and (d) CPC.

4. The appellants-plaintiffs contested the aforesaid application and maintained that it was a private trust and registered as such by registered trust deed dated 22.01.2000. Respondent-defendant was appointed as District Evangelist to look after the activities carried by the trust in their New Apostolic Church situated in Vijay Nagar, but respondent-defendant without permission of the trust with the help of his relatives raised unauthorised/illegal construction due to which a show cause notice was issued to him on 16.03.2010. When he tendered apology, he was again appointed as District Evangelist on 01.04.2011. When respondent-defendant still persisted in his illegal activities in defiance to the objects of the trust, his services were terminated w.e.f. 01.06.2013. Even though intimation thereabout was given to respondent-defendant and he was required to hand over keys of the church, but he failed to do so. The trust being private trust was not required to be registered under the provisions of the Act. No such application was, therefore, required to be submitted to Assistant Commissioner, Devesthan, Rajasthan. Since respondent-defendant had acted in defiance of and contrary to objects of the trust, cause of action arose to plaintiffs to file and maintain the suit against him.

5. The trial court after hearing the parties and taking into consideration the objects of the Trust held that it was a public trust and in view of the provisions of Section 17 of the Act, it was required to be mandatorily registered and as per Section 29 of the Act. If a trust, which is required to be registered, has not been got registered, no civil suit can be filed and maintained on its behalf.

6. Mr. Shailesh Prakash Sharma, learned counsel for the appellants has argued that the trial court committed serious illegality and material irregularity in not taking into consideration the legal provisions attracted in the present case and wrongly dismissed the suit. The trial court has failed to consider the fact that under the provisions of Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. Application filed by respondent-defendant stating therein that the suit was barred by any law, was not maintainable for the purpose of rejection of the plaintiffs suit because defendant had not contested the suit, but only submitted application for rejection of the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC raising certain objections, which could not have been appreciated by the trial court, until and unless evidence was led. Rejection of the plaint at the very outset and recording of the finding by the trial court for the purpose of rejecting the suit is wholly erroneous, illegal and perverse. Application of respondent-defendant was also not maintainable for the reason that the submissions made in the plaint were necessary for adjudication of the dispute between the parties and there could not have been any deviation from the aforesaid. It is submitted that plaintiffs have specifically in para No. 1 of the plaint pleaded that the trust was a private trust and in that event, finding recorded by the trial court on the objections of defendant of it being public trust were neither sustainable. Any application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC stating therein that the Trust, which had filed the suit, was unregistered trust and thus, the suit was not maintainable on account of Section 29 of the Act, ought not to have been considered by the trial court at the stage when the suit was filed and not contested by defendant.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the question of plaintiff-trust being public or private trust was a mixed question of law and fact and could be decided only after recording of evidence. Rejection of the plaint at the very outset before recording of evidence is wholly illegal. The trial court has failed to consider that the germane facts for deciding an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC are the averments in the plaint and not the pleas taken in the application for rejection of the plaint. The defendant did not contest the matter; rather he tried to get rid of the allegations made against him in the plaint by merely filing the application for rejection of plaint. It is submitted that when the averments of the plaint were having material bearing in the decision of the suit and were the sole consideration for entertaining the matter and the trial court before registering the plaint, had after being conscious of the fact that the suit was maintainable, issued notices to the defendant, the defendants contentions raised in the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC were not sustainable in the eyes of law. It was necessary for the trial court to first examine as to whether there was any requirement of rejecting the suit out rightly, when the contents of the plaint itself specified that the trust was the private trust and it could not be said that the suit deserve any rejection. Therefore, passing of impugned order is wholly illegal, erroneous and perverse. Even at the time when plaint was presented, it is registered only if it discloses any cause of action arising and after being satisfied about its proper valuation etc., the notices were issued to the opposite party. The trial court once being satisfied about the aforesaid fact and the defendant having not contested the matter, the trial court ought to have decided the matter only after evidence was recorded. It is argued that there could not have been any adjudication of facts and dispute between the parties at the stage when a mixed question of fact and law existed. The plaint has been illegally rejected on the ground of its being barred by law. Therefore, the aforesaid judgment and decree deserves interference by this court. There was no requirement of perusing and looking the aims and objectives of the trust and other material facts, as has been done in the present case. Erroneous and illegal findings have been recorded by the trial court, which deserve to be set aside. Learned counsel for the appellant, in support of his arguments, has relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Saleem Bhai & Others v. State of Maharashtra & Others, , (2003) 1 SCC 557 [LQ/SC/2002/1340] and judgments of this Court in Govind Narayan v. Shri Baheti Dharmshala & Ors. , 2011 (3) DNJ(Raj.) 1066 and Hari Ram & Anr. v. Shri Goyenka Welfare Trust, Fatehpur, District Sikar, , 2013 (4) DNJ (Raj.) 1636.

7. Per contra, Ms. Shikha Parnami, learned counsel for respondent-defendant argued that the trial court was perfectly justified in holding the plaintiff-trust to be a public trust, which flows from the objects and constitution of the trust. All such ten objects have been reproduced in Para 5 of the impugned judgment, which go to show that trusts objects are consisting of a wide range of social activities and as such it has to be treated as public trust and not private trust. Since Section 17 of the Act requires such trust to be mandatorily registered. Since the plaintiff-trust has not been registered, the suit has rightly been dismissed being barred by law as per Section 29 of the Act. Learned counsel has relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Church of Christ Charitable Trust and Educational Charitable Society represented by its Chairman v. Ponniamman Educational Trust represented by its Chairperson/Managing Trustee, , (2012) 8 SCC 706 [LQ/SC/2012/534] and submitted that where a document is sued upon and its terms are not set out in the plaint, but referred to in the plaint, the said document gets incorporated by reference in the plaint. Since the reference in the plaint is made to the aforesaid trust deed dated 22.01.2000, the objects of the trust can be looked into and has rightly been looked into by the trial court to hold it to be a public trust.

8. I have given my anxious consideration to the rival submissions and carefully examined the material on record as well as judgments cited by learned counsel for the parties.

9. Before adverting to arguments of the parties, it will be useful to reproduce provisions of Sections 17 and 29 of the Act, which read as under:

"17. Registration of public trusts.--(1) Within two years from the date of the application of this section to a public trust or from the date on which a public trust is created, whichever is later, the working trustee thereof shall apply to a Assistant Commissioner having jurisdiction for the registration of such public trust.

(2) The Assistant Commissioner may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, extend the period prescribed by sub-section (1) for the making of an application for registration by not more that three months.

(3) Each such application shall be accompanied by such fee, if any, not exceeding five rupees, and to be utilised for such purpose, as may be prescribed.

(4) The application shall be in such form as may be prescribed and shall contain the following particulars, namely:--

(i) the origin (so far as knows), nature and object of the public trust and the designation by which the public trust is or shall be known;

(ii) the place where the principal office or the principal place of business of the public trust is situate;

(iii) the name and addresses of the working trustee and the manager;

(iv) the mode of succession to the office of the trustee;

(v) the list of the movable and immovable trust property 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 gross average annual income derived form movable and immovable property and from other source, if any, based on the actual gross annual income during the three years immediately proceeding the date on which the application is made or of the period which has elapsed since the creation of the trust, whichever period is shorter, and, in the case of a newly created public trust the estimated gross annual income from all such sources;

(viii) the 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 (vii) relate, and in the case of a newly created public trust, the estimated annual expenditure in connection with such public trust;

(ix) the address to which any communication to the working trustee or manager in connection with the public trust may be sent;

(x) such other particulars as may be prescribed;

Provided that the rules made 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 kind as may be specified therein.

(5) 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 (Central Act V of 1908) for signing and verifying plaints. It shall be accompanied by a copy of the instrument of trust (if such instrument has been executed and is in existence) and, where the trust property includes immovable property entered in a record of rights, a copy of the relevant entries relating to such property in such record of rights shall also be enclosed.

(6) No Assistant Commissioner 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 Assistant Commissioner, and the Assistant Commissioner before whom the application was filed first shall decide which Assistant Commissioner shall have jurisdiction to register the public trust.

(7) An appeal against the order of the Assistant Commissioner before whom the application was filed first, given under sub-section (6) may be filed within sixty days before the Commissioner and, subject to the decision on such appeal, the order of the Assistant Commissioner under sub-section (6) shall be final."

29. Bar against suits by unregistered trust.--(1) No suit to enforce a right on behalf of a public trust which is required to be registered under this Act, but has not been so registered shall be heard or decided in any court. (2) The provisions of sub-section (1) shall apply to a claim of set off or other proceedings to enforce a right on behalf of such public trust."

10. Learned counsel for appellants-plaintiffs has emphatically argued that the plaintiff-trust was a private trust and at any rate it was a mixed question of law and facts. Evidence was required to be led by the parties before holding it to be a public trust and such a question could not have been decided by the trial court by merely seeing at the objects of the trust because this question is a mixed question of fact and law. In the present case, there are ten objects of the plaintiff-trust, which have been reproduced by the trial court in para 5 of the impugned judgment and which could not be possibly disputed by the plaintiffs. Those objects are reproduced hereunder for the facility of reference:

"1. To establish and manage Churches, Schools, Hostels, Dispensary/Medical Station/Hospitals/for the benefit of New Apostolic Church congregations, Christian Pilgrims, Tourists and Students going on Educational Tours and general public.

2. To set up and establish institutions for developing and encouraging the moral and spiritual needs of the people by establishing and aiding religious and allied institutions.

3. To construct, maintain and manage community halls, meditation halls, halls for lectures, discourses and debates for advancement of knowledge and gaining mental health, peace and stability.

4. To publish and distribute text and Note Books, study materials to persons interested in studying Biblical matter and philosophical books of the like nature.

5. To establish, maintain and manage libraries and reading rooms.

6. To start and manage centres for training youths in self employment and job-oriented courses.

7. To canvas and to have programmes for afforestation and ecological balance.

8. To have programmes for all round development of villages and rural communities.

9. To grant scholarships and free ships and free food to the poor and deserving students and homes for the poor and needy people.

10. To achieve the above objects without envisage of any profit."

11. Perusal of the aforesaid objects clearly shows that the plaintiff-trust covers a wide range of social activities which cannot be said to be activities of a private trust, namely, to establish and manage Churches, Schools, Hostels, Dispensary/Medical Station/Hospitals/for the benefit of New Apostolic Church congregations, Christian Pilgrims, Tourists and Students going on Educational Tours and general public; to set up and establish institutions for developing and encouraging the moral and spiritual needs of the people by establishing and aiding religious and allied institutions; to construct, maintain and manage community halls, meditation halls, halls for lectures, discourses and debates for advancement of knowledge and gaining mental health, peace and stability; to publish and distribute text and Note Books, study materials to persons interested in studying Biblical matter and philosophical books of the like nature; to establish, maintain and manage libraries and reading rooms; to start and manage centres for training youths in self employment and job-oriented courses; to canvas and to have programmes for afforestation and ecological balance; to have programmes for all round development of villages and rural communities and to grant scholarships and free ships and free food to the poor and deserving students and homes for the poor and needy persons etc. None of the activities enumerated in the aforesaid objectives can be said to be private in nature or rather each one of them dwell upon public at large.

12. Considering the above-quoted objects of the Trust, it cannot be said to have been constituted for private purposes or for the purposes of trustees alone. There may be a situation where the question whether the trust is public trust or private trust may require evidence to be led, but in the present case, objects of plaintiff-trust, on the face of it, straightway brings it within the purview of public trust. Judgments of this Court in Govind Narayan(supra) and Hari Ram & Anr.(supra) cited by learned counsel for the appellants are distinguishable on the facts of the present case. The Supreme Court in Saleem Bhai & Another(supra) held that the trial court can exercise the power under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC at any stage of the suit, i.e. before registering the plaint or after issuing summons to the defendant at any time before the conclusion of the trial. For the purpose of deciding an application under Rule 11 (a) and (d) of Order 7 CPC, the averments in the plaint are germane and the pleas taken by the defendant in the written statement would be wholly irrelevant at that stage. There can be no quarrel with the proposition of law set out in the aforesaid judgment, but in the present case it cannot be said that this question has been decided by the trial only by examining the averments of the written statement and not on the basis of the pleadings of the plaint. Reference in the plaint has been made to the trust deed dated 22.01.2000 and, therefore, by reference, the trust deed has been incorporated in the plaint itself.

13. The Supreme Court in Church of Christ Charitable Trust and Educational Charitable Society represented by its Chairman (supra) was dealing with a case which arose out of suit for specific performance of agreement to sell of immovable property which was referred to in the plaint. The Supreme Court, relying on its earlier judgments in U.S. Sasidharan v. K. Karunakaran, , (1989) 4 SCC 482 [LQ/SC/1989/416] and Manohar Joshi v. Nitin Bhaurao Patil, , (1996) 1 SCC 169 [LQ/SC/1995/1299] , held that where a document is sued upon and its terms are not set out in the plaint but referred to in the plaint, the said document gets incorporated by reference in the plaint.

14. Here in the present case, even though the trust deed or objects of the trust have not been produced along with the suit, but its reference finds place in the pleading of the plaint. The trial court while determining the question whether it was a public trust or private trust, after taking note of the objects of the Trust, rightly held it to be a public trust. Section 17 of the Act mandates that a public trust has to be mandatorily registered within two years from the date of the application of this section to a public trust or from the date on which a public trust is created, whichever is later, but the plaintiff-trust was not registered within aforesaid stipulated period of three months. Therefore, provisions of Section 29 of the Act got attracted, according to which the suit filed by the plaintiff-trust, being unregistered public trust, could not be allowed to proceed.

15. In view of above discussion, there is no illegality or infirmity in the judgment and decree dated 24.02.2015 passed by the trial court. The present appeal, being devoid of merits, deserves to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. Stay application also stands dismissed.