The central legal point established is that the jurisdiction of the civil court in framing a scheme for a trust was not excluded by the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act 1959, as the trust was considered a composite endowment for both religious and secular purposes.

1. The suit was filed under Sec. 92 C.P.C. for framing. a scheme for the trust known as Deep Narayandas Trust. The deed of Trust dated 11-1-1910 provides that the income from the property should be spent for lighting in Sri Adhikesavaperumal, Sri Rhashyakar temple and Manavala Mamuni Sannidhi and for feeding the uttaradhis (persons from North India) during Brahmotsavam and other periods in the year. When the suit was taken up for trial, at the instance of the defendants, issues I and 2 relating to the maintainability of the suit were taken up for consideration as preliminary issues. The contention of the defendants was that by virtue of the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious, and Charitable Endowments Act 1959(Tamil Nadu Act XXII of 1959), the suit is barred and that if at all the application will have to be made to the Deputy Commissioner for framing the scheme under S. 63 of the Act. The learned Subordinate Judge did not accept this contention on the ground that the main dispute related as to which of the rival claimants is entitled to celebrate the annual festival and such disputes cannot fall within the ambit of S. 63 and as such the bar under S. 108 will not apply. It is against this order this revision petition has been filed.

2. Section 5(e) of the Act excluded the applicability of Ss. 92 and 93 C.P. Code to 'Hindu religious institutions and endowments'. It is not the case of the defendants that the suit in question (sic) is a Hindu religious institution. But what is contended is that it is religious endowment within the meaning of Sec. 5 of the Act. 'Religious endowment' is defined in clause 17 of Sec. 6.asmeaning-

"religious endowment' or endowment' means all property belonging to or given or endowed for the support of maths or temples or given or endowed for the performance of any service or charity of a public nature connected therewith o - r of any other religious charity: and includes the institution concerned and also the premises thereof: but does, not include gifts of the property made as personal gifts to the archaka, service holder or other employee of a religious institution."

The endowment is not for the support of the math or temple. However, it is contended that it is given or endowed for the purpose of a service of a public nature connected with temple or math. This was on the ground that one of the directions in the endowment is fighting in Sri Adhikesavaperumal, Sri Bashyakar temple and Manavala Mamuni Sannidhi and that would amount to a religious endowment. However, I find that the major part of the income from the properties endowed is to be spent for feeding the persons coming from North India during Brahmosthsavam and other days. That is not a religious endowment, though it is a public charity. It is also not a religious charity so far as feeding of persons coming from North India, because it is not connected with a Hindu festival or observance of a religious character and the feeding is to be done throughout the year. In the circumstances, therefore, this has to be considered as a composite endowment, both for religious purposes as also secular purposes. To such a, trust, S. 5 is not attracted. It is true that the Government should have notified the same under S. 3, but no such notification has so far been made. At best, it could be said that under S. 63, the Deputy Commissioner has a power to make an allocation between the religious and secular purposes. But, that does .not mean that the jurisdiction of the civil, court in framing a scheme is excluded. In the circumstance, therefore, the finding of the learned Judge that the court below had Jurisdiction to entertain the suit and it is not ~barred by the provisions of Tamil Nadu Act I XXII of 1959, is correct and does not call for any interference. The civil revision petition -is accordingly dismissed. But, there will be, no order-as to costs.

3. Revision dismissed.