A gift for a religious purpose is a gift for a charitable purpose and the distinction between public and private trusts is that public trusts are for the benefit of the public at large or of some considerable portion of it answering a particular description, while private trusts are for the benefit of one or more individuals who are or within a certain time may be, definitely ascertained and to whom therefore collectively, unless under some legal disability it is, or within the allowed time will be, competent to control, modify, or determine the trust.

RAMASWAMI J. :- This appeal is directed against the decree and judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge of Salem in O. S. No. 165 of 1954.

2. The suit out of which this appeal arises was for (a) settling a scheme, and (b) removing the defendant from trusteeship, (c) appointing a new trustee as per the scheme to be settled, (d) directing the defendant to render accounts of the income from the trust properties since 1945, and to direct him to pay to the trust whatever is found due on account of past and present income and profits in the suit properties and (e) any other directions regarding the suit charities and other reliefs.

3. The suit was filed on the foot of the following allegations : The plaint A schedule proper ties were endowed by the late Narayanaswami Mudaliar, the adoptive father of the defendant, and the late Arunachalain Chettiar, the father of plaintiffs 1 and 2 and paternal uncle of the third plaintiff, from a portion of profits earned in their partnership business and set apart for charitable purposes. The partnership was dissolved under a registered document dated 30-11-1909. The document recites that at the instance of Narayanaswami Mudaliar the suit properties were purchased in his name and it was agreed that he should manage them as trustee, without any right or power to alienate, and that the income therefrom should be utilised for performing the usual Samaradhanai and other charities. As contemplated in the said document, a separate deed came into existence on 7-1-1910.

Narayanaswami Mudaliar till his death on or about 8-2-1933 was properly conducting the plaint B schedule charities. The defendant who is his adopted son was a minor on 8-2-1933, and there were disputes between the defendants natural father and his adoptive mother Ratnammal with the result that the charities were neglected. The usual charities that were being done by Narayanaswami Mudaliar for feeding the poor during the festivals of Thai Poosam in Kalipati Kandaswami temple and the Chitra Poornami in Sri Sitheswarar temple in the choultry belonging to the parties, were done on a small scale without due regard to the income from the trust properties and also the scale in which the same was performed by Narayanaswami Mudaliar. The plaintiffs estimate that a sum of Rs. 10,000/-should have been collected by the defendant since he attained majority and there must be a large surplus left in his hands.

Having regard to the fact that the charities have been much neglected, it has become necessary to settle a proper scheme for the management of the trust properties and the retention and conduct of the charities as may be found commensurate with the income. The plaintiffs are persons interested in the charities since they were also participating in the performance of the charities during the lifetime of Narayanaswami Mudaliar and have also been doing some of the charities with their own moneys in a small way and anxious to have the charities performed as were being originally done. Even otherwise, plaintiffs 1 and 2 are the sons of Arunachalam Chettiar, one of the founders, and the third plaintiff is no other than the son of Ariyaputra Chettiar, the then undivided brother of Arunachalam Chettiar. The plaintiffs have therefore instituted the suit under S. 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure with the sanction of the District Collector of Salem.

4. The contentions of the defendant are reflected in the following issues :

1. Whether the "A" schedule properties are properties of a trust or endowment created for public purposes for the performance of the charities mentioned in schedule "B of the plaint?

2. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to maintain this suit?

3. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to have a scheme framed?

4. Whether the defendant is liable to account?

5. Whether the description of the "A" schedule properties is not correct?

6. Whether the defendant has made any improvements?

5. The learned Subordinate Judge before whom the third plaintiff