JUDGMENT

1. We have come to the conclusion that the learned Judge has misdirected himself in this case as to what really is a public trust and that he has failed to appreciate the strong points in the evidence. The respondent has not been represented, but perhaps in view of the overwhelming character of the evidence it is not surprising. The suit is brought alleging that a certain temple and idol constituted a public trust, having been built and dedicated for the use and benefit of the Hindu public. That it was built and dedicated by the original owner out of his private purse, and as his private property, to be used for religious purposes, there can bi no doubt whatever. No doubt also a man can create a private trust by building a temple and an idol and endowing it with funds or income for strictly private purposes, not merely retaining the management and control in the hands of himself and he family but restricting the enjoyment to himself and his family or other individuals, and he may out of the warmth of his heart allow other persons but side the original beneficiaries to enjoy from time to time the advantages thereby created but in such cases "especially with a temple and idol