( 1. ) CHALLENGE in this Civil Revision Petition is to the order dated 04.02.2008 in I.A.No.1180 of 2003 in Trust O.P.No.3 of 1998 on the file of the learned Principal District Judge, Trichirappalli, whereby and whereunder, the learned Principal District Judge was pleased to reject the review petition filed by the petitioners to review the order dated 18.06.2001 in Trust O.P.No.3 of 1998. BACKGROUND FACTS:

( 2. ) THE respondents have instituted a proceeding before the learned District Judge, Trichirappalli in Trust O.P.No.3 of 1998 praying for an order to remove the charge for the performance of petition schedule charities viz., Upayam and Dharmam from the income of the 'A' schedule property and impose the charge on 'B' schedule property.

The respondents in their Original Proceeding contended that the property described in schedule 'A' was purchased by one Veeramalai Pillai as per document dated 03.05.1901. Subsequently, there was a partition in the family of Veeramalai Pillai as per document dated 21.01.1921. In the said partition, a charge has been created over the income from the 'A' schedule property for the performance of Arthajama Kattalai Upayam in Arulmighu Boologanathaswami Temple at Tiruchirappalli and also for the performance of Thannirpandal Dharmam at the time of Chitra Festival in Srirangam Temple. There was a recital in the partition deed earmarking a sum of Rs.105/- for the Upayam and Dharmam and another sum of Rs.100/- was set apart by way of remuneration. The remaining income from the property was to be shared among the parties to the partition deed after meeting the expenses for maintenance.

( 3. ) THERE was a further partition in the family consequent to the death of Veeramalai Pillai and in the said partition made on 31.05.1925, the subject property was allotted to the share of Natesan Pillai as per schedule 'E'. THERE was a charge in the said property for the purpose of performance of Upayam and Thanneer Panthal Dharmam. Subsequently, Natesan Pillai executed a registered Will dated 15.04.1963, in and by which, the respondents got the property. The Will contains a stipulation that there will be a charge on 'A' schedule property for the purpose of doing charities.

( 4. ) ACCORDING to the respondents, due to rapid urbanisation, residential colonies have come up. Therefore, it was not possible to irrigate the lands and as such, they want to remove the charge from the income of the property described in 'A' schedule and impose it on the property described in 'B' schedule.

The petitioners in their objection filed before the learned District Judge, opposed the prayer. According to the petitioners, the charges mentioned in the documents were connected with the temple and as such, it would come within the purview of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act. Therefore, the petitioners submitted that the civil Court has no jurisdiction to take up the matter. VIEWS OF THE TRIAL JUDGE:

( 5. ) THE learned District Judge framed two issues for determination. THE first issue pertains to the nature of the trust and the other was in respect of the prayer to remove the charge.

( 6. ) THE learned District Judge found that the partition deed as well as the Will proceeds as if the endowment was not a public one and it was purely a private endowment. THE intention of the creator of the trust was to treat it as a private endowment.

The learned District Judge, on a careful consideration of the pleadings and documents, arrived at a factual conclusion that it was a private endowment and not a public one requiring sanction of the authorities concerned. Accordingly, the first issue was answered holding it as a private endowment. The second issue was answered against the respondents and accordingly, the trust O.P. was dismissed.

( 7. ) THE order dated 18.06.2001 in Trust O.P.No.3 of 1998 was challenged by the petitioners before the High Court in C.R.P.No.1809 of 2002. While dismissing the Civil Revision Petition, by order d