JUDGMENT CHAINANI C. J.-The lands in dispute were granted as Inam on the Condition of service which was specified as Taziadari, that is, for taking out Tazias during the period of Mohurram. After the coming into force of the Hyderabad Abolition of Inams and Cash Grants Act as amended in 1959, the question arose whether this Inam was abolished by this Act. The Deputy Collector held that the Inam was not abolishett. That order was con6rmed in appeal by Government. It is being challenged before us in this application. 2. Sub-section (2) of section 1 of the Act states that it shall be applicable to all Inams except (i) imams held by or for the benefit of charitable and religious institutions and (ii) inams held for rendering village service useful to the Government or to the village community including sethsendhi, neeradi and balutha inams. Sub-section (2A) provides that on the coming into force of the Hyderabad Abolition of inams (Amendment) Act, 1959 (July 1, 1960) the Act shall apply also to cash grants and inams of the nature of community service inams and watans. The expression "community service inams is defined in sub-section (1) of section 2 to mean an inam held for performing service useful to the village community and includes an inam held for such service even where such service has ceased to be demanded. 3. The Muntkhab which was issued about 1916 shows that the grant had been made to Saroji Kondaji and four other persons on condition of rendering service which is mentioned as Taziadari. The holders of the inam were, therefore, five individuals, who cannot be described as a charitable and religious institution. The grant was not made to any society or organization. According to the Oxford English Dictionary the word "institution" means "establishment; organization or association instituted for the promotion of some object, specially, one of public or general utility, religious, charitable, educational etc. e. g. a church, school, college, hospital, asylum, reformatory, mission or the like." This is the ordinary meaning of the word. According to the Oxford English Dictionary the word "institution" means "establishment; organization or association instituted for the promotion of some object, specially, one of public or general utility, religious, charitable, educational etc. e. g. a church, school, college, hospital, asylum, reformatory, mission or the like." This is the ordinary meaning of the word. Another meaning is "established Jaw, custom, usage, practice, organization or other element in the political or social life of the people." Colloquially it is some times used in the sense of something having fixity or importance of a social institution, e. g. in the sentence "He is one of the institutions of the place." Ordinarily, therefore, an individual is not referred to as an institution. A grant to an individual would not, therefore, be a grant to an institution. The fact that the grant was made for the performance of service of a religious or charitable nature is immaterial Every inam for a charitable or religious purpose is not for the benefit of a charitable or religious institution. The Deputy Collector has referred to a casual observation in the judgment of Iman J. in Ram charan Law v. Fatima Begum (1), which is as follows: •••••• but it is the keeping up of the Mohuarrum as an institution with all its moral effect on the general Mahomedan public." The word "institution" here is obviously used in the sense of a custom or practice. It would be wrong to draw from this sentence an inference that a grant for performing religious service is a grant to a religious institution. The question, which the Calcutta High Court had to decide, was also quite different and that was whether a waqf was created where with the object of dedicating a house to the service of the inams, Hassan and Hussain and for other religious purposes, the settlor had conveyed the house to his grand children on trust for the proper observance of the objects mentioned in the deed. 4. As the lands in the present case were granted as inam not to any society or organization but to five individuals and as the present holders of the inam are also some individuals, the inam cannot be said to have been held by or for the benefit of any charitable or religious institution. 4. As the lands in the present case were granted as inam not to any society or organization but to five individuals and as the present holders of the inam are also some individuals, the inam cannot be said to have been held by or for the benefit of any charitable or religious institution. The service for rendering which the grant was made was a service to be rendered to a section of the Muslim community. The Inam would, therefore, be a community service in am within the meaning of the Act. Such an inam was abolished with effect from July I, 1960, under sub-section (2A) of section 1 of the Act. 5. In our opinion, therefore, the view taken by the Deputy Collector and by the Government is not correct. We set aside the orders made by them and hold that the inam was a community service inam which was abolished with effect from July 1, 1960. No order &s to costs. Order set aside.