Judgment :- (Chief Justice.) The defendant, the Commissioner for Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments, is the appellant. The suit brought by the respondent was for a declaration that the audit feese demanded of it under S. 91 of Madras Act 22 of 1959 was illegal and ultra vires . The respondent is described as Bolavaraja Santhiappa Mandagapadi, represented by its Managing trustee, one Kuppuswami Iyer. There is a mandapam on the road from Madurai to Thirupparankundram about 4 miles from Sri Meenakshisundareswarar Swami Temple. Every year, the utsava vigraham of Sri Subramaniaswami and Meenakshisundareswarar Swami meet on Panguni Uttiram Thirukalyanam day at the mandapam . The deities are received with honours and after the deities leave the mandapam , brahmins have been fed. The expenses in this connection are met with the income from the hands described in the plaint schedule. The respondent maintained that the suit property constituted neither a religious endowment nor a religious institution to which the said Act would be applicable, so that no audit fee would be payable. The trial court dismissed the suit, but on appeal, Venkatadri J. took a contrary view and decreed it. This is upon the view that the property was not a religious endowment. He came to that conclusion because in his view the importance of the mandapam was only on the Panguni Uthiram day, when the Managing Trustee with his relations received the utsava vigrahams of Sri Subramaniaswami and Sri Meenakshisundareswarar Swami inside the Mandapam with honours, and after the worship was done to the deities, they left the Mandapam , and then the brahmins were fed, and that this showed that the charity was not connected with the temple, and this was not a case also of as endowment for the support of a math or temple or for the purpose of a charity of a public nature. We are constrained to observe that in this case, the documents filed in the suit have not been properly looked into, which throw considerable light on the character of the property. There can be no doubt that the property formed the subject-matter of a gift by a native Raja. The original title deed is not forthcoming. In the circumstances, therefore, the Inam extract, Ex. A.12, furnishes the most important material, in the light of which the character of the gift will have to be decided. There can be no doubt that the property formed the subject-matter of a gift by a native Raja. The original title deed is not forthcoming. In the circumstances, therefore, the Inam extract, Ex. A.12, furnishes the most important material, in the light of which the character of the gift will have to be decided. The Inam extract, in column 2, gives the name of the Inamdar, and while doing so, it partly describes the character of the inam. It also says that it was originally granted by a native Raja by name Bolavaraja. Apparently, he was a chieftain or king, who happened to hold domain near about Madurai. The recital is: Tamil Column 7 throws even better light. It says Tamil It is clear from this statement that the property was given as a gift for dharmam and that the dharmam was connected with the Panguni Uttiram festival of Meenakshisundareswaraswami, and was for the performance of the Mandagapadi of Sri Meenakshisundareswaraswami and following the mandagapadi brahmins should be fed. That is the purpose for which the endowment was created. The extent of the land as it appears from the Inam extract was 8 acres 2 cents. We are of the view that having regard to the extent of the land and the expenditure which would have to be incurred for the performance of the charities, the land itself would have been given as a gift. There is nothing in the Inam Extract or the connected documents. Exs. A.7 to A.11, to show that what was granted was only melwaram. But we are not mainly concerned with the question what exactly was the gift, whether the melwaram only or the entire property. Whatever that be, there is no doubt that the property was endowed for the performance of the object just now mentioned, which was connected with Sri Meenakshisundareswaraswami in Sree Meenakshi temple. The Act applies, as we stated, under Sec. 1(3) to all Hindu public religious institutions and endowments. These two expressions have been defined. In our view, the endowment will not constitute a religious institution, by which is meant a math, temple or a specific endowment. For an endowment to be a specific endowment, it should be any property endowed for the performance of a specific service or charity in a math or temple, or for the performance of any other religious charity. In our view, the endowment will not constitute a religious institution, by which is meant a math, temple or a specific endowment. For an endowment to be a specific endowment, it should be any property endowed for the performance of a specific service or charity in a math or temple, or for the performance of any other religious charity. This is not an endowment for such a purpose. But, in our view, it will be a religious endowment, which is defined as any property belonging to or given or endowed for the support of maths or temples, or given or endowed for the performance of any service or charity of a public nature connected therewith, or of any other religious charity. The performance of a mandagapadi to the utsavar idol taken from Sri Meenakshisundareswararswami temple is a purpose connected with the temple, though the service is not done in the temple. We hold, differing from Venkatadri, J. that the endowment here is a religious endowment to which the Act will apply. The next question is whether in spite of the fact that the property is a religious endowment, the appellant is entitled to collect audit fees. The authority for him to collect and it fee is under Sec. 22, but that section enables him to collect audit fee only from a religious institution and not from a religious endowment. We have already mentioned that a religious institution has been defined as a math, temple or specific endowment. As this endowment does not fall under any one of those categories and can be regarded only as a religious endowment, the Commissioner, by the very terms of Sec. 92, will not be entitled to collect the audit fees. Though we differ from Venkatadri, J. and hold that the suit property constituted a religious endowment, we agree with him that the Commissioner had no authority to collect the audit fee. There will, therefore, be a declaration to that effect. The appeal is dismissed. The parties will bear their costs throughout.