Kuppuswami Ayyar, J.

1. The only point argued in this appeal is that on the facts stated there could be no forgery, because the signature that is said to have been forged is the signature of the idol of Venkatachalapathi and the idol cannot be said to be a person. In Ex. A the document in question it does not appear that the signature in it was shown as the signature of the idol of Venkatachalapathi. It reads as if it is the signature of a person by name Venkatachalapathi. The fact is that the property stood in the name of the idol of Sri Venkatachalapathi and the patta was sought to be transferred from the name of the idol to the name of the first accused by the document, Ex. A. On the strength of the observations in Ramalinga Chetti v. Sivachidambara Chetti (1918) 36 M.L.J. 575 : I.I.R. Mad. 440 it is urged for the appellant that Venkatachalapathi is not "a specific person, real or artificial." The observation made in that page relates to a general dedication at the time of ceremonial occasions of Hindus where the offering is made for the satisfaction of Sri Hari Janardana. Sri Hari Janardana was, understood by Seshagiri Iyer, J., not as an idol, but as the universal soul