Expression Hindu Charitable Endowment defined I the Act.

K. Shanmukham, J.

1. The only point that falls for determination in this Second appeal is whether the endowment made under Ex.A-1 is a Hindu Charitable Endowment within the meaning of Section 3 of Act XXII of 1959.

2. The plaintiff in O.S.No. 14 of 1974 Sub Court, Kumbakonam, came forward with the said suit for setting aside the order of the Deputy Commissioner, H.R. and C.E. Department dated 23.5.1967 in O.A. No. 9 of 1964 and for consequential relief of injunction restraining the defendants viz., Sri Sarangapaniswami Devas-thanam and Commissioner H.R. and C.E. Department, from interfering with the rights of the plaintiff in respect of the property referred to in Ex.A-1. On the ground that the endowment is a Hindu Charitable Endowment, the Deputy Commissioner, H.R. and C.E. framed a scheme at the instance of the 1st respondent herein in O.A. No. 9 of 1964. It is unnecessary to refer to the particulars therefor for the disposal of this second appeal. On the strength of the scheme so framed, an application was filed before the Magistrate concerned for issuing a certificate for taking delivery of the properties in the possession of the plaintiff. The plaintiff rested his claim on two grounds, (i) under the will of Vembu Naicker dated 17.10.1958 the plaintiff was appointed as the hereditary trustee and therefore he is entitled to be in management of the properties and (ii) a reference to the charities mentioned in Ex.A-1 would show that there is no Hindu Charitable Endowment by the maker.

3. The principal defence is that under Ex.A-1, there is a Hindu Charitable Endowment, and that as the plaintiff had failed to resort to his remedy provided under Tamil Nadu Act 22 of 1959, the present suit is not maintainable. The further defence of limitation was also urged on behalf of the respondents. It may be useful to point out that Ex.A-1 was also executed by Vembu Naicker.

4. The trial Court found that the will propounded by the Plaintiff and said to have been executed by Vembu Naicker on 17.10.1958 is not true and was not executed in a sound and disposing state of mind. It also held that the plaintiff has no locus standi to maintain the suit and that in any event, the suit as framed is not maintainable. Consequently, the suit was dismissed.

5. Aggrieved against the said decision, the Plaintiff preferred an appeal, A.S. No. 39 of 1977 on the file of the District Judge, West Thanjavur; pending the appeal, the plaintiff having died, his heirs were impleaded as appellants 2 and 3. The learned District Judge held that the charity is a Hindu religious charity, that the order made in O.A.No. 9 of 1964 cannot be set aside, that the suit is out of time and also that the suit is not maintainable because the plaintiff has no locus standi.

Hence, the present second appeal by the two appellants who were impleaded as the legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff.

6. The only contention made by the learned Counsel for the plaintiff is that the charities referred to in Ex.A-1 would not amount to Hindu Charitable Endowments, that the Endowments cannot be governed by Tamil Nadu Act XXII of 1959, and that therefore the 2nd respondent had no jurisdiction to frame any scheme.

7. Thus, the question turns on the construction of Ex.A-1. It is useful to state that the appellants do not dispute that the Endowment is a charitable one, according to them, it is not a Hindu Charitable Endowment so as to attract the operation of Tamil Nadu Act XXII of 1959. It is enough therefore to focus my attention on the items of charities as enumerated in Ex.A-1. The document is in Tamil. The particulars of charities are set out in B Schedule to the said document and they are as follows:

The objects given in Ex.A-1 are as follows:

1) Every year on Panguni Uthiram day country fans, fruits, sugar candy, coconuts etc., should be given to all people in Sri Sarangapaniswami temple;

2) Sahasranama Archana should be performed in Perumal and Thayar Sannadhis;

3) Desanthris should be f