Provisions of the Act held not applicable.

Sengottuvelan, J.

1. Defendants 1 and 2 in O.S. No. 24 of 1962 on the file of the District Munsif of Krishnagiri, namely, the State of Madras, represented by the Collector, Salem and the Commissioner Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Madras, have filed the above second appeal challenging the legality and correctness of the judgment of the District Judge, Dharmapuri at Krishnagiri in A.S. No. 128 of 1973.

2. The facts of the case are briefly as follows-Respondents 1 and 2 herein and two others filed the suit Q.S. No. 24 of 1962, on the file of the District Munsif at Krishnagiri, for a declaration that the suit properties do not constitute a public charitable endowment within the meaning of Sections 3 and 6, Clause (5) of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, Act 22 of 1959 and for a consequential injunction restraining the second appellant from making an enquiry in respect of the suit properties and for other reliefs. The case of respondents 1 and 2 is that the lands described in items 1 to 3 of the plaint schedule were granted by the British Government to Sri Arunachala Iyer, who is the great grand-father of the first respondent and the fifth respondent in or about 1844 for his having constructed a private charity with his own funds and on his own site. There has been no dedication of the choultry to the public at any time either by Arunachala Iyer or his descendants. No member of the public could claim to use of the choultry as of right. The said Arunachala Iyer and his descendants refused permission to undesirable persons for proper reasons and such refusals have never been challenged. Arunachala Iyer died before 1862, leaving his only son Samayyar who is the predecessor in title of respondents 1 and 2. Items 1 to 3 of the plaint schedule have been granted in inam to Arunachala Iyer absolutely and the gifts were in recognition of his having a reward or gift for the meritorious act already done by the individual. The grant was not an endowment for the choultry. The said lands, according to the entries in the B register, were enfranchised and as such, they ceased to have the character of inam. A plea was also taken that in any event the grant is a personal grant burdened with service and that the inamdars are entitled to enjoy the same as long as they maintain the choultry. The proposed enquiry by. the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department is in contravention of Article 12 of the Constitution and affects the fundamental rights of respondents 1 and 2 and others.

3. The State represented by the Collector as well as the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department contended that the Court has no jurisdiction to decide the question involved in the suit. The grant of the suit lands was not a personal grant to Arunachala Iyer, but only a grant to the choultry and the choultry is not a private one. The land on which the choultry stands is classified as "village natham" in the Revenue records Dedication of the choultry to the public can be inferred from the fact that all along from its inception the choultry is being used by the public for public purposes such as marriages, religious functions, weekly worships and auspicious functions. The management and control of the choultry by Arunachala Iyer, and his descendants was not in their own right, but only as managers or trustees. The claim of respondents 1 and 2 to the choultry as their private property is untenable. That itself constitutes legal mismanagement and breach of trusts. The grant was an endowment for the choultry and not for the individual. The classification of the suit lands as 'Dharmadhayam' is clear proof that it was only an endowment for the choultry and not the absolute property of respondents 1 and 2. The term occurring on the Inam B register will not mean enfranchisement and freedom from Government interference since the trust was mismanaged, an enquiry was ordered under the provisions of the Hindu R