The installation of idols with ceremonies like Prana pratishta etc. prescribed by Hindu Sastras is not the sine qua non for public religious worship. In any event, it is not a legal requisite under the definition of 'temple' in the Act.

KRISHNASWAMY REDDY, J. :- This appeal is by the plaintiff against the judgment and decree of the First Additional Subordinate Judge, Madurai dismissing the suit filed by him to set aside the order of the Deputy Commissioner for Religious Endowments Board in framing a scheme in respect of a religious trust created by one Chockalingam Pillai by a settlement deed dated 24-10-1924.

2. The brief facts which culminated in the filing of the suit by the appellant are these : There is a temple called Kalyanasundareswarar temple in Avaniyapuram village. One Chockalingam Pillai, a native of the said village who was a pious and religious man desired to make four idols of Sri Appear. Sundarar, Manickavasagar and Sambandamurthi and instal them in the said temple of Sri Kalyanasundareswarar. He requested his friend and relative, one Muthukaruppa Pillai of the same village who had taken interest in thiruppani work of the said temple, to make the aforesaid four idols and construct temples for them. The said Muthukaruppa Pillai made the four idols and completed the work as desired by Chockalinga Pillai. Thereafter, Chockalingam Pillai, in pursuance of the promise made by him to Muthukaruppa Pillai that he would make arrangements for the performance of daily pooja, neivedhyam, Shodasa upacharams etc, endowed and dedicated certain properties in favour of the said four idols by a deed of settlement dated 24-10-1924 (Ex. A. 1.) for the purpose of doing daily pooja and also Gurupooja every year in respect of the said idols and for similar purposes mentioned in the said deed. By the said deed, he appointed the aforesaid (1) Muthukaruppa Pillai, (2) Pichai alias Chockalingam Pillai (appellant) who is the grandson of his elder brother and (3) one Gopala Iyer, the son of the Manager of Kalyanasundareswarar devastanam as trustees for the management of the properties and administration of due performances of the various items of pooja and other things mentioned in the said deed.

3. Chockalingam Pillai died in 1926. Muthukaruppa Pillai who took over the management of the properties died in 1934. Gopala Iyer, another trustee appointed under the settlement deed died in 1937. His son, Sesha Iyer filed a suit, O. S. No. 19 of 1944 on the file of the District Munsif, Madurai taluk, against the appellant and third respondent, Natesa Pillai, son of Muthukaruppa Pillai, claiming to be the managing trustees, for recovery of possession of the trust properties from the appellant and for rendition of accounts. His claims as managing trustee as well as recovery of possession from the appellant were negatived in the suit and the decree was confirmed in appeal No. 3 of 1945 on the file of the District Court, Madurai. However, the appellant was directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 2064 as the amount due by him in respect of the income from the trust properties. The said Sesha Iyer again filed a suit, O. S. No. 84 of 1951 on the file of the Sub Court, Madurai, against the appellant and the third respondent for their removal from the trusteeship and for recovery of the trust properties on the ground of mismanagement. During the pendency of the suit, Sesha Iyer died. His adopted son Seshayya who was a minor at that time was brought on record as his legal representative. The suit was ultimately compromised and a decree was passed in pursuance of the said compromise by the Sub Court, Madurai on 8-7-1954. Under the terms of the compromise decree, the properties endowed and dedicated to the four idols shall belong to the Chockalingam Pillai Trust, that the appellant shall be the managing trustee of the said Trust and that he should purchase nanja lands from out of the sum of Rs. 2,222 and odd available with him (appellant) belonging to the said Trust and if such lands could not be purchased, he should deposit the said sum in a bank in the name of Chockalingam Pillai Trust. The appellant did not purchase the properties as provided in the decree, but, however, deposited the mon