A temple is a place used as a place of public religious worship and dedicated to, or for the benefit of, or used as of right by, the Hindu community or any section thereof.

Abdul Hadi, J.—Defendants 5 to 8 are the appellants in this appeal against the decree in O.S. No. 906 of 1978 on the file of Subordinate Judge's court, Tiruchirapalli, setting aside the order dated 16.10.1976 of the 1st defendant 2nd respondent herein, viz., the Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments, Madras and declaring that the suit trust is not a religious institution" under the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), but that it is only a private trust of the plaintiff-1st respondent's family. Originally the 1st respondent filed C.A. No. 6 of 1974 on the file of the Deputy Commissioner, H.R.& C.E., Trichy, u/s 63(a) of the Act for declaring that the suit Trust is not a religious institution under the Act. But, that application was dismissed by order dated 28.8.1975 (marked as Ex. B-2 in the suit) by the Deputy Commissioner, holding that the suit trust was only a religious institution. Thereafter, the 1st respondent preferred an appeal in A.P. No. 73 of 1976 before the 2nd respondent-Commissioner and by order dated 16.10.1976 (marked as Ex. A-13 in the suit) the Commissioner only confirmed the order of the Deputy Commissioner and dismissed the appeal. Hence the present suit was filed u/s 70 of the Act for setting aside the order of the said Commissioner and for declaring that the trust is a private trust. The suit having been decreed as prayed for, the trial court holding that the suit trust was not a religious institution, the appeal has been preferred by defendants 5 to 8.

2. The 2nd defendant-3rd respondent is the Fit Person appointed by the Commissioner and 3rd defendant-4th respondent is a paternal grandson of one of the original three trustees to the said trust. It may also be pointed owl here that the plaintiff himself is the maternal grandson of an other original trustee of the said Trust. Admittedly, originally there was a Sabha founded by one Ramanujadasar and he dedicated the suit properties which were got by him partly by way of purchase and partly by way of donations under the trust deed Ex. A-1 dated 11.3.1930, whereby he appointed three trustees by name (1) Nallasamy Chettiar (2) Venkatarama Chettiar, and (3) Veeraraghava Chettiar. It is these trustees who are referred to as original trustees earlier.

3. Now, while the plea of the plaintiff is that the said suit trust is only a private trust and would not come under the definition of the term 'temple' u/s 6(2) of the Act and consequently not a religious institution as defined u/s 6(18) of the Act, the plea of the appellant as well as the 1st defendant is that it is a temple and consequently a religious institution. Therefore, in this appeal it has only to be seen which of these two contentions is correct and whether the decision of the court below that it is a private trust and not a religious institution is correct. The 1st defendant though did not prefer an appeal, supported the appellants and both the learned Counsel for the appellants and the learned Counsel for the 2nd respondent made the same arguments. The said arguments are as follows : The recital in Ex. A-1 itself shown that the dedication made therein is not for any specified individuals, but only for the Hindu Community as a whole or atleast a section thereof, in which ease, the trust would only be a public trust. In this connection the decision in Deoki Nandan Vs. Murlidhar, , is relied on, Further, even the court below has held that idols of Navalarasamigal and Sri Kannabiran were worshipped by the people and D.Ws. 2 to 5 have stated that people from various places would come and worship the deities. The decisions in S. Ramaswamy Naidu and Others Vs. Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments and Others, , Chennammal Vs. The Commissioner, for Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments, , Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Vs. S. Kalayanasundara Mudaliar, and T.V. Mahalinga Iyer