1. We do not think that the judgments of the Subordinate Judge can be supported. We think that his construction of Exhibit I as not amounting to a dedication of the idol and the land in question as a public religious institution is erroneous.

2. By Exhibit I the plaintiff dedicated the land to the idol, so that a temple may be built on it, and he adds that in ease a permanent temple is built thereon for the idol, neither he nor his heirs will raise any dispute". These words would be inapplicable if it was a trust for a private family idol which the plaintiff was creating. A stone temple was being created on the site by the 5th defendant though it was not completed at the date of the suit. The District Munsif fully refers to other circumstances which clearly support the view which we take based on the terms of Exhibit I.

3. We are clearly of opinion that the dedication of the idol and land to the public is not a gift within the definition of that term in Section 122 of the Transfer of Property Act. In our opinion the word "donee" is not applicable to the public. It must denote an ascertained or ascertainable person or persons by whom or on whose behalf the gift can be accepte