The main legal point established in the judgment is the distinction between private and public trusts, particularly in the context of temple properties, and the criteria for determining the nature of a temple as a public or private trust under the Kerala Land Reforms Act.

1. This civil revision petition is against the order passed by the Taluk Land Board, Chittoor in ceiling case No.57 of 1973. The Taluk Land Board had initiated proceedings against one Krishnan Ezhuthassan for surrender of excess land. He died during the pendency of the proceedings. Thereafter the Taluk Land Board passed an order on 21-7-1976 to surrender 13.80 acres. This order was challenged by the legal heirs of Krishnan Ezhuthassan on the ground that the proceedings abated on the death of the declarant. !; This Court set aside the order of the Taluk Land Board and directed to proceed against the legal representatives under S.87 of the Kerala land Reforms Act. Fresh draft statement was issued and revised order was passed on 28-1-1987, whereby the Taluk Land Board held that the respondents have no excess land. This order is being challenged in this case.

2. The main contention urged by the State is that an extent of 7.73 acres of land was exempted by the Taluk Land Board on the ground that it was a temple property. The majority of the members of the Taluk Land Board held that the property belonged to a public temple and therefore it is liable to be exempted. However, the Chairman of the Board made a dissenting note, as he was of the view that the temple in question is purely a private one and whatever property allotted to such an institution is not liable to be exempted. The learned counsel for the respondents contended that the recitals in Ext. B9 settlement deed would show that the property was set apart for a public temple and therefore that property was liable to be exempted. It was also contended that the property was allotted to a Hindu idol and an idol being a juristic person the property allotted to it cannot be included in the accounts of the assessee's family.

3. The document is of the year 1961. It has been styled as a settlement deed. It has been mentioned therein that the settlor Krishnan Ezhuthassan had constructed a temple and poojas were being carried out in this temple and that he wanted to continue the poojas and religious ceremonies. Therefore, he set apart certain properties for this purpose. In Para.4 of the document it is specifically stated that the property comprised in A and C schedule are allotted for this purpose. It is stated that till his death the property would be in his possession and thereafter his eldest son would keep this property and carry out the religious functions. The details of poojas and other religious functions to be carried out are also mentioned in the document.

4. At the outset it may be considered whether under Ext.B9 settlement deed there is dedication of property to idol. Under the Hindu Law an idol is a juristic person capable of holding property and the properties endowed for the institution vest in it. But it does not follow from this that it is to be regarded as the beneficial endowment. It is only in an ideal sense that the idol is the owner of the endowed properties and it cannot have any beneficial interest in the endowment. It has been so held in Deoki Nandan v. Murlidhar (ALR.1957 S.C.133). The Supreme Court observed:

"Even according to the texts, the Gods have no beneficial enjoyment of the properties, and they can be described as their owners only in a figurative sense (Gaunartha). The true purpose of a gift of properties to the idol is not to confer any benefit on God, but to acquire spiritual benefit by providing opportunities and facilities for those who desire to worship.

When once it is understood that the true beneficiaries of religious endowments are not the idols but the worshippers, and that the purpose of the endowment is the maintenance of that worship for the benefit of the worshippers, the question whether an endowment is private or public presents no difficulty. The cardinal point to be decided is whether it was the intention of the founder that specified individuals are to have the right of worship at the shrine, or the general public or any s