A writ petition cannot be used to make up for the omission of a party to raise a point in a suit.

ORDER : The State Government passed G. O. Ms. No. 2773 Home, D/-3-10-1958, extending the provisions of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951 to Odacheri Chatram and water Pandal charity at Odacheri village in Tiruthuraipundi taluk. The notification to that effect followed certain findings by the State Government on charges of improper administration of the endowment. The petitioner instituted O. S. No. 250 of 1959 on the file of the court of the District Munsif, Tiruthuraipundi for a declaration that the notification was without jurisdiction. The suit was dismissed in June 1960 and the appeal arising therefrom also failed on 21-8-1961. It appears, a second appeal, which was filed, was dismissed by this court even at the admission stage. This petition was filed in January 1962. apparently after disposal of the second appeal, to quash the notification.

2. The notification was made by the State Government in exercise of powers vested in it by S. 3 of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act 1951. That Act, by S. 6(4), defined 'charitable endowment' to mean all property given or endowed for the benefit of, or used as of right by, the Hindu or the Jain community or any section thereof, for the support or maintenance of objects of utility to the said community or section. Section 3 provided that where the Government had reason to believe that any Hindus or Jain public charitable endowment was being mismanaged and was satisfied that in the interests of the administration of the endowment it was necessary to extend the provisions of the Act, it could do so by notification in the official Gazette after following the procedure prescribed in the proviso to the section. The definition of 'charitable endowment' and S. 3 both manifestly relate to Hindu Public charitable endowments which are not exclusively Hindu in character. That was held by this court in State of Madras v. Seshachalam Chettiar Charities, 1960-2 Mad LJ 591. Rajagopalan and Srinivasan, JJ. in that case were of the view :

"The very definition of charitable endowment in S. 6(4) of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act XIX of 1951 postulates the test of exclusiveness. Unless the benefit of the endowment is confined wholly to Hindus, it would not be a charitable endowment as defined in that section. The prefix 'Hindu' to expression 'Public Charitable endowment' in S. 3 emphasises this feature. Section 3 cannot be invoked unless the endowment is exclusively Hindu in character."

That view of the statutory provisions was applied in W. P. No. 662 of 1959 and W. A. No. 75 of 1962 (Mad), Thulasidas Naidu v. State of Madras, arising therefrom. Placing reliance on these decisions, Mr. Kumaraswami Pillai for the petitioner contends that the charity here in question is not a Hindu charitable endowment and the notification would, therefore, be void as without jurisdiction. It is not clear who the founder of the charity was or what were the terms of the foundation. But in the affidavit in support of the petition as also in the impugned notification it is stated that the Odacheri chatram and Water Pandal charity were intended to serve a two-fold object, namely, feeding all the chatram and conducting water pandal wayfarers in charity. In fact, the charge levelled against the petitioner in the impugned notification is that these charities were not properly performed and the endowment had been mismanaged. Nowhere does it appear that the charity was confined exclusively to the Hindu community. Taking it for granted that the founder of the charity was an ancestor of the petitioner and he was a Hindu, it does not follow necessarily from that fact alone that his intention was to confine the charity to the Hindu wayfarers exclusively. The water pandal charity may be incidental to feeding all wayfarers. But inasmuch as feeding wayfarers does not appear to have been confined exclusively to the Hindus, the result follows that it will no