Requirements for declaration of Specific Endowments.

1. The plaintiff is the appellant.

.2. The averments in the plaint are as follows: The plaintiff’s grandfather Cheetalla Venkatachalam Chetty was the founder of Cheetalla Venkatachalam Chetty Charities and he was the sole trustee of the same for the performance of Thandhiarathanai services in Perumal Temples located in Madras. The house bearing new door No.61, Govindappa Naicken Street, Madras-1 was set apart by him for the performance of the private trust in the partition deed of the family dated 11. 1985. He had not executed any trust deed, with an absolute endowment of any properties for the performance of any specific endowment in any religious institution. There was a ‘silasasanam’ embedded on the walls of the house indicating the private nature of the trust in question. The object of the founder to perform the ‘Thadhiarathanai services’ is not with reference to any particular temple. So as to constitute a specific endowment or a Religious Charity. In view of the peculiar nature of the dedication, the plaintiff and his ancestors could not perform the ‘Thadhiaradhanai services’. But the plaintiff has been continuing the services of distributing ‘Thadhiarathanai’ to desanthiris in the house set apart by the founder. The Deputy Commissioner, H.R. & C.E., Madras has initiated suo motu proceedings in O.A.No.19 of 1969 to frame a scheme for the private trust in question as if it has come under the purview of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act (hereinafter called as the Act). The plaintiff has filed a petition under Sec.63(a) of the Act in O.A.No.30 of 1969 for a declaration that the above charity does not constitute either as a specific endowment or a religious charity to attract the provisions of the Act. The Deputy Commissioner dropped the proceedings initiated in O.A.No.19 of 1969, but dismissed the O.A.No.30 of 1969 filed by the plaintiff. The plaintiff preferred an appeal in A.P.No.100 of 1975 to the Commissioner to set aside the impugned order of the Deputy Commissioner. The appeal was dismissed. The plaintiff has therefore filed the suit under Sec.70(1) of the Act to set aside the order of the first defendant viz. The Commissioner, H.R. & C.E. Board in A.P.No.100 of 1975. There is no specific direction for the performance of the services in question in any particular religious institution. Therefore, it will not come under the purview of the Act. The plaintiff is a sole trustee and he prays a decree may be passed setting aside the order of the Commissioner.

.3. The first defendant is his written statement contends as follows: The slab inscription dated 29. 1982 embedded in old door No. 174, Govindappa Naicker Street has been clandestinely removed by de facto trustee Raghava Chetty and he is keeping it in his custody. He is also residing in the said building without paying any rent. The charities founded have not been performed. The intention of the founder had been nullified. The plaintiff contends that it is a private trust managed by the hereditary trustee and it is secular character. It is also contended by him that there was no provision for any kind of religious charity public or private and the trust was a failure on account of the vagueness and uncertainty. Deputy Commissioner heard both O.A.No.19 of 1969 and O.A.No.30 of 1969, simultaneously. The plaintiff has preferred an appeal against the dismissal of O.A.No.30 of 1969 filed by him. The performance of Thathiarathanai in perumal temples in the City of Madras is a religious endowment or a specific endowment coming under the purview of the Act. The petition before the Deputy Commissioner and the appeal before the Commissioner were disposed of on merits. The suit is therefore liable to be dismissed.

4. On the above pleadings, the trial court has held that the suit endowment is of public nature connected with temples and the orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner and the Commissioner are perfectly valid and dismissed the suit.

5.