With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is finally heard.

1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by the petitioner being aggrieved by the order dated 26.12.2025 (Annexure P/1) passed by the Registrar, Public Trusts, respondent No.1, whereby an application preferred by respondent No.2 under Section 26 of M.P. Public Trusts Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act, 1951') has been allowed and the working trustee has been directed to make an application to the Civil Court under Section 26 (2) of the Act, 1951.

2. The facts of the case in brief are that respondent No. 2 has filed an application under Section 26 of the Act, 1951 before the Registrar, Public Trust for grant of reliefs as mentioned therein and also for taking appropriate action to issue necessary directions and provide report to the District Court. In application, it has been stated that Choithram Charitable Trust (CCT) is a Trust registered under the provisions of the Act, 1951. Respondent No. 2 is the working Trustee of the Trust. The complaint is against the Trustees of CCT as regards misconduct, mismanagement, breach of trust and misappropriation intellectual property misappropriation. The facts and issues as stated in the application have narrated the mismanagement, misconduct, breach of trust and financial misappropriation by the Trustees with a prayer as aforesaid.

3. The application was contested by the petitioners by filing their reply submitting that respondent No.1 does not have any jurisdiction to hear the application since respondent No.2 has made averments as regards the trust deed of Choithram International Foundation (CIF) which is registered at Jersey and its interpretation can be done only by the Court at Jersey. Respondent No.1 does not have any authority to interpret the said deed since CIF is not amenable to the provisions of the Act, 1951. The petitioners have demanded recovery of amount from CIF which is impermissible. The Courts in India do not have any jurisdiction to take decision in respect of CIF. Various other objections were also raised.

4. Upon hearing parties, by the impugned order, respondent No.1 has allowed the application preferred by respondent No.2 observing that respondent No.2 is a person interested in the functioning of the Trust hence is entitled to maintain the application. Choithram Charitable Trust (CCT) is nominated beneficiary of CIF and its rights and share has been disputed by the petitioners. The petitioners have functioned as trustees of CCT and have been the office bearers. On the basis of the documents available on record, it is evident that there are serious allegations as regards adverse conduct in CCT and looking to them, it would be appropriate to make an application before the Civil Court.

5. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.

6. From a perusal of the record of the case, it is seen that the petitioners have earlier worked as trustees of CCT and are also working on different posts of CIF. CCT is a beneficiary of CIF and as per respondent No.2, CCT has a share in the income and properties of CIF to the extent of 25%. The averment made by respondent No.2 in his complaint in respect of CIF is only to the extent of share which CCT has in the income and properties of CIF and nothing more. For that purpose, it is the trust deed of CCT which is required to be seen and the trust deed of CIF is not required to be interpreted as has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioners. Whether the contention of respondent No.2 is correct or not can very well be adjudicated by having a reference to the trust deed of CCT and that of CIF. For doing the same, no interpretation of the trust deed of CIF is required to be made. If it is contended that CCT has a share in CIF, then it cannot be said that the Courts in India would not have the jurisdiction to enter into that aspect of the matter merely because CIF is registered outside India.

7. Admittedly, respondent No.2 is a person interested in the Public Trust CCT and is competent to maintain the application. CCT is a beneficiary of CIF and respondent No.2 has raised a serious issue and dispute as regards the income and share of CCT in CIF. Serious allegations have been levelled against the petitioners as regards their failure to furnish the necessary information of the income of the CCT, which has resulted into adverse impact upon its interests. The other allegations have also not been specifically denied by the petitioners hence would be a subject matter of adjudication. Upon conscious consideration of the material available on record, respondent No.1 has arrived at a conclusion that it would be appropriate to make a reference to the Civil Court.

8. In the application preferred by respondent No.2, there are serious allegations as regards the petitioners deliberately acting against the Trust and misappropriating assets estimated to Rs.21,000/- Crore. They are alleged to have declined to provide information about the incomes and assets belonging to CCT. They are alleged to have misappropriated assets of CCT by transferring the intellectual property into an overseas private entity. Various other serious allegations have also been levelled. All these matters require consideration by the Civil Court as there is a great dispute regarding the management of income and properties of the Trust.

9. In view of the findings which have been recorded by respondent No.1, in my opinion, he has not committed any error in directing the working trustee of the Trust to make an application before the Civil Court under Section 26(2) of the Act, 1951. Moreover, at present only a direction has been given to make the application before the Civil Court where all the contentions as have been raised by the petitioners in this petition would be available to be raised and the matter shall be adjudicated by the Civil Court in extenso. The findings which have been recorded by the Registrar are only prima facie findings and it would always be open for the petitioners to demonstrate that they are erroneous and that the contingencies as contemplated under Section 26 (2) of the Act, 1951 are not available for issuing any directions.

10. Resultantly, it cannot be said that the Registrar has erred in passing the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. The same is accordingly affirmed, as a result of which the petition is dismissed.