Judgment Chaudhary Sia Saran Sinha, J. 1. This is an appeal by the defendant against the judgment and decree of the learned Subordinate Judge, Barh in title suit no.2 of 1965, insituted by the respondent Bihar Hindu Religious Trust Board (hereinafter referred to as the Religious Trust Board) for a declaration that the endowment created by the registered deed of Samarpannama dated 12.4.1933 marked Ext. B is a public trust and not a private one. 2. The two widows Smt. Gango Kuer wife of Lal Babu and Smt. Mango Kuer wife of Tulsi Sao, both the Mohall Bazidpur Dayachak within barh P. S. of the district of Patna, installed the idols of Shri Ramji, Shri lachhumanji and Shri Jankiji in a portion of their house and for the Rag-Bhog etc. of the said idols they dedicated properties, the subject matter of the deed of Samarpannama (Ext. B) to the said idols. Under Ext. B the two widows appointed themselves as the Manager (Muntajim) and Mutawalli of the Thakurbari locating the said idols till their life time for making arrangement for the pujas, Rag Bhog etc. of the said idols in the manner they liked (Hasab khahish wo Pasand Khudha ). After their death, issueless as they were, they nominated their close relation Ramdas, grand father of the appellant Sarjug prasad, to act as Manager and Mutwalli of the appellant Sarjug Prasad, to act as Manager and Mutwalli of the said Thakurbari for the aforesaid purposes in the manner he would like. It was further provided in Ext. B that the line of succession to the post of Muntazim and Motwalli of the Thakurbari would go to the heirs of the said Ramdas after his death and no body would have any objection to the same and in case of the line of the said Ramdas becoming extinct, the Mutwallliship was to go to Munshi Das, full brother of the said ramdas and to his heirs, who too were to function as such in the same way as the dedicators, and accordingly after the death of Ramdas, the defendant-appellant, his grandson, came to be the Muntazim and Mutwalli of the said thakurbari. 3. 3. Ramdhari Rai (P. W.2), filed the petition (Ext.1) before to the chairman, Religious Trust Board in January, 1962, alleging misappropriation of the income of the aforesaid endowed properties as also interference on his part in allowing the public to go to the Thakurbari for Puja path etc. , and praying for the appointment of a committee obviously consisting of the public, for preventing misappropriation of the income of the Thakurbari. The religious Trust Board then called upon the defendant-appellant to submit the return of income which was objected to by him on the ground that the endowment evidenced by Ext. B was a private endowment created for the worship of the family idols in which the public was not interested and as such it was not a "religious trust" within the meaning of this term as defined in section 2 (1) of the Bihar Hindu Religious Trust Act, 1950 (hereinafter to be referred to as the act ). This led to a reference to the Authority under the said Act and the said authority, in case no.5 of 1962 under section 43 of the Act, by its order dated 30 9 1964 Ext. C, decided that the Thakurbari in question was not a public thakurbari and consequently he held it to be not a trust property. 4. The plaintiff-respondent thereupon instituted Title Suit no.2 of 1965 for a declaration that the trust in question was a public trust and public temple property and not a private one as also for a declaration that the order of the authority dated 30.9.1964 was against the real state of affairs and thus liable to be set aside. 5. The defendant contested the suit, though unsuccessfully, alleging, inter alia, its non-maintainability and asserting that the endowment in question, as evidenced by Ext. B, having been made in favour of the family dieties was a private endowment, and the public having no access to the dieties, it was not a public one as alleged by the plaintiff. 6. Certain issues were framed by the learned trial court but in view of the limited contentions raised before this court it may not be necessary to detail them here and it would suffice to say that the learned trial court held the suit to be maintainable and the decision of the Authority dated 30.9.1964 to be incorrect, ultra vires and without jurisdiction. It further held that the endowment in question was a public trust, was in use as such till the alleged obstruction by the defendant and not a private trust and as such he decreed the suit, which has given rise to this appeal. 7. The only contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant before this court was that the endowment created by the Samarpannama (Ext B) from the very inception was a private endowment created for the worship of the family idols in which public was not interested and it remained so all along and was not a religious trust within the meaning of this term as used under section 2 (1) of the Act, thereby denying the endowment in question to be a public trust. No other contention having been raised before this court it is unnecessary to discuss the other issues framed and decided by the court below. 8. "a religious trust" as defined in section 2 (1) of the Act means any express or constructive trust created or existing for any purpose recognised by hindu law to be religious, pious or charitable, but shall not include a trust created according to the Sikh religion or purely for the benefit of the Sikh community and a private endowment created for the worship of a family idol in which the public are not interested. Sec.2 (g) defines the terms "person interested in a religious trust" as meaning any person who is entitled to receive any pecuniary or other benefit from a religious trust and includes - " (i) any person who has a right to worship or to perform any rite, or to attend at the performance of any worship or rite, in any religious institution connected with such trust or to participate in any religious or charitable administration under such trust (ii) the founder and any descendant of the founder and (iii) the trustee". 9. 9. While it was the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent that the endowment in question was a "religious trust" within the meaning of this term as defined in section 2 (1) of the Act from the very inception and was being treated as such since then, it is not his case that the endowment in question was initially a private endowment but subsequently it came to be treated as "religious trust" or a public trust, nor any such contention was advanced before us. In such circumstances, the nature of the endowment has to be determined primarily according to the intention of the dedicators as expressed in the deed itself, in the instant case, the Samarpannama Ext. B, and this would necessitate the scrutiny of the terms of the deed (Ext. B) itself Ext. B recites, inter alia, that to perpetuate the names of their fathers-in-law and husbands as also their Own names, the two ladies had installed the idols of Shri Ramji, Shri lachhumanji and Shri Janak Kishoriji in a Thakurbari constructed at their expense but at the time of execution isbakt of the Samarpannama, which is dated 12.4.1933 and which was registered on 20.4.1933, there was no arrangement for any income to meet the expenses of Rag Bhog etc. , of the said idols and life being uncertain circumstances, may arise when no income may be available for such expenditure and, therefore, for the purposes of Rag Bhog etc. , the dedicators were dedicating the properties of the Samarpannama (Ext. B) to the said idols. Thus the recitals in Ext. B reveal that the establishment of the idols preceded the making of the endowment as evidenced by Ext. B and in the absence of any satisfactory evidence to the contrary, the contention raised on behalf of respondent that the establishment of the idols was contemporaneous with the endowment is not fit to be accepted. This deed of endowment, no doubt, shows that the properties endowed were dedicated to the idols, above named, but as observed by the Supreme Court in the case of Deoki Nandan V/s. Murlidhar and others, reported in AIR 1957 SC 133 under the Hindu Law, an idol is a juristic person capable of holding property and the properties endowed for the institution vest in it. But it does not follow from this that it is to be regarded as the beneficial owner of the endowment. It is only in an ideal sense that the idol is the owner of the endowed properties and it cannot have any beneficial interest in the endowment. Their Lordships further observed that even According to the texts, the Gods have no beneficial enjoyment of the properties, and they can be described as their owners only in a figurative sense (Gaurartha ). The true purpose of a gift of properties to the idol is not to confer any benefit on God, but to acquire spiritual benefit by providing opportunities and facilities for those who desire to workship. When once it is understood that the true beneficiaries of religious endowments are not the idols but the worshippers, and that the purpose of the endowment is the maintenance of that worship for the benefit of the worshippers, the question whether an endowment is private or public presents no difficulty. The cardinal point to be decided is whether it was the intention of the founder that specified individuals are to have the right of worship at the shrine, or the general public or any specified portion thereof Ext. B specifically recites that during the life time of the two ladies, the dedicators, they would be the Muntazim or mutwalli and they would themselves arrange for the Puja Rag Bhog etc. of the idols }n the manner they would tbink fit and proper (Hasab Khahis vo pasand khudha jaisa munasib vo maslehat samjhenge anjam vo insram kiya karenge) There is further provision in Ext. B regarding the arrangement for the worship, Rag Bhog etc. of the idols after the death of the two dedicators. The dedicators were, undisputedly, issueless but after their death they chose as mutwalli and worshippers, a close relation (Khas Ristemand) of theirs, namely, ramdas, to be followed by his heirs. The further provision therein is that on the line of Ramdas becoming extinct, Munshi Das, the full brother of the said ramdas and his heirs would be the worshippers etc. Thus Ext. B shows that while dedicating the properties to the idols, mentioned above, the persons who are entitled to worship the idols and arrange for their Rag Bhog etc. The further provision therein is that on the line of Ramdas becoming extinct, Munshi Das, the full brother of the said ramdas and his heirs would be the worshippers etc. Thus Ext. B shows that while dedicating the properties to the idols, mentioned above, the persons who are entitled to worship the idols and arrange for their Rag Bhog etc. were the dedicators themselves and after them their relation Ramdas and his heirs and on the line of the latter becoming extinct, it was Munshi Das, full brother of Ramdas, who was to perform these functions. Ramdas and his heirs as also Munshi Das and his heirs might not be said to be members of the family of the dedicators within the meaning of this term as understood in the popular sense, but they were the khas relations of the dedicators and were thus ascertained group of individuals, closely related to the dedicators, as distinguished from the general public. There is nothing in Ext. B to show that the right of worship or the arrangement for the Rag Bhog etc. of the idols or the management of the endowed property was ever to come in the hands of the members of the public or an unascertained group of individuals nor is there anything to show that any member of the public, unconnected with the family of the dedicators, was to have any right of worshipping the said idols. It is true that according to the terms of the Ext. B, the endowed properties vested in the idols absolutely and that no part of the income of those properties was to go to the worshippers, above mentioned, nor they had any right to alienate or encumber any of the endowed property, but, as rightly contended on behalf of the appellant, this cannot make the endowment created by Ext. B a public trust or religious trust. The sole intention behind the endowment, as evidenced by Ext. B, was arrangement for the worship Rag Bhog, Utaava etc. of the idols and that being so, it was appropriately stipulated therein that no part of the income of the endowed properly was to go to the worshippers named therein nor they had any right to alienate the same or create encum-berance therein. There is also no provision in Ext. B, was arrangement for the worship Rag Bhog, Utaava etc. of the idols and that being so, it was appropriately stipulated therein that no part of the income of the endowed properly was to go to the worshippers named therein nor they had any right to alienate the same or create encum-berance therein. There is also no provision in Ext. B for any portion of the income of the endowed property being spent over Sadhus and Abhvagats and the expenditure of the income is solely limited to the Rag Bhog etc. of the idols and the remainder, if any, over the improvement of or additional to the endowed property. Ext. B indicates that what was upper most in the mind of the dedicators was to achieve the objects mentioned therein namely attainment of spiritual benefit and perpetuation of their own names as also those of their husbands and father-in-law by the worship of the idols and this is why they chose after them, their relations, who as compared to the public, may be more interested in their spiritual benefit. The finding of the trial court is that the objects behind Ext. B made it apparent that this Thakurbari was created for the worship of the Hindu public at large is based on surmises, is misconceived and unfit for acceptance. On the other hand the contents of Ext. B lead to the conclusion that the intention behind it was to create a private endowment and neither a public trust nor "religious trust". 10. There are other facts and circumstances also to support the conclusion arrived at above. Undisputedly, the idols above named, were installed in a Thakurbari constructed by the two ladies, above mentioned, out of their own money. It is also undisputed that this Thakurbari was constructed in a part of their Ztnanikila, while it is stated in para 3 of the plaint that the idols were installed in a portion of their (dedicators) house, Ram lakhan Bhagat (P. W.4) has admitted that the Thakurbari was constructed in the Zcnanikita. It is also his admission that the outlet (Nikas) of this zenanikita and the Thakurbari is one and the same i. e. , in the western side. It is also his admission that the outlet (Nikas) of this zenanikita and the Thakurbari is one and the same i. e. , in the western side. It is true that Ramswaroop Das (P. W.9) a resident of Gulab Bag, while stating that the outlet of his Thakurbari was in the western side, has further stated that it had a small outlet in the northern side also. But he appears to have no concern with the management of this Thakurbari and it cannot be accepted in preference to the statement of P. W, 4 Nathuni Gope (D. W.2)Pompal Sah (D. W.4) and Sarjug (D. W.12) have also stated about their being only one and the same outlet for the two and the same is acceptable. Besides the evidence of some of the witnesses for the defendant, even Ram Lakhan bhagat (P. W.4) has admitted that this Thakurbari is the Khas Thakurbari of Ramdass family (Yah Thakurbari Ramdas ke pariwar ka apna hai) P. W.5, maksudan Jha has also admitted that the female members objected to the entry presumably of the public, in this Thakurbari. In face of these, the statement of some of the witnesses for the plaintiff that the Thakurbari in question was a public one is not fit for reliance. 11. Basing his contention on certain materials, to be referred to hereinafter, it was submitted on behalf of respondent that the building of the thakurbari in question also indicated that it was a public and not a private one. Reference was made in this connection to the report (Ext.3) of the law agent Kedar Pad Pandey (P. W.8) as also to the evidence of Ramdhari Rai (P. W.2) Ram Kishun Prasad (P. W.3) Maksudan Jha (P. W.5), Garbha Sao (D. W.2) and Gauri Sao (D. W.8) Ext.3 shows that the Thakurbari is a pucca built one and its dome (Gumbad) is very high. This report does not indicate the dimensions of the dome though it states about the height of the idols as 1 feet. P. W.8 is a law agent of the respondent and as stated by him in his cross-examination he does what he is ordered to do, presumably by the authorities of the respondent. This report does not indicate the dimensions of the dome though it states about the height of the idols as 1 feet. P. W.8 is a law agent of the respondent and as stated by him in his cross-examination he does what he is ordered to do, presumably by the authorities of the respondent. He is thus an interested witness and the suggestion thrown to him is that he submitted the report without actually visiting the Thakurbari P. W.2 and P. W.5 merely stated about the existence of dome on the temple and the statement of P. W.4 was that the Singhasan which the idols were kept was more than 2 to 2 feet in height. P. W.2, the author of Ext.1, was unable to say the number of verandah or their dimensions. He showed his ignorance about his being a party to a proceeding under section 144 Cr. P. C. in connection with the thakurbari in question and the suggestion thrown to him, is, though he has denied it, that in that proceeding he wanted to grab the land of the Thakurbari. As it appears from the evidence of some of the witnessea for the plaintiff, he is deeply interested in the instant suit and it was he who had asked some of the witnesses for the plaintiff to come and depose in the suit P. W.3 did not remember the date of the month or even the year when he went in side the thakurbari nor did he remember the colour of the Singhasan. He was also unable to give the details of the inside portion of the Thakurbari P. W.5 a resident of Mauza Gurhainichak, has not gone to the Thakurbari since last 10 years. He could not state the names of owners of the land and the house falling to the north and south of the Thakurbari respectively. He also came to depose without summons on being told by P. W.2 that the Thakurbari was a public one (Janata Ka ). He has litigation with one Raghu Sao in which one Ram Kishun Sao son of Ramdhari Rai (P. W.2) makes Pairvi for him. None of them thus appears to be competent for their evidence is such as to inspire confidence. He has litigation with one Raghu Sao in which one Ram Kishun Sao son of Ramdhari Rai (P. W.2) makes Pairvi for him. None of them thus appears to be competent for their evidence is such as to inspire confidence. The evidence of Nathuni Gope (P. W.2) where-in he stated that the height of the temple up to the dome was 8 to 10 cubits as also the evidence of Gauri Sao (D. W.8) wherein he stated that the temple was visible from out side was also referred to in this connection. The height of the temple including the dome portion to the extent of 8 to 10 cubits cannot by itself make the construction of the Thakurbari a magnificent or an imposing one. Then again (D. W.8) also stated that though the Thakurabri was visible from outside, it was not visible from a distance. Even assuming these to be true, these descriptions of the Thakurbari cannot by themselves indicate the public nature of the Thakurbari, particularly when judged in the content that it existed in the Zenanikita of the two dedicators having only one common outlet both for the Thakurbari and the Zenanikita. 12. Coming to offerings by the public (P. W.2), and (P. W.3), came to state about the public offerings on the idols installed in this Thakurbari at the time of Puja, but on a scrutiny of their evidence, the same appears to be apt fit for acceptance. On the other hand Porapal Sah, (D. W.4) and Sarjug Prasad (D. W.12)have successfully denied about any such offering by the public to the idols of this Thakurbari. Even the deed Ext. B does not make any provision for any such public offerings. There is also no satisfactory evidence on behalf of the plaintiff to show that any member of the public had any hand in the arrangement for Puja, Rag Bhog etc. of the idols or the management of the endowed property at any time. 13. Evidence has also been laid on behalf of respondent to show that the public also used to go to this Thakurbari for offering Puja without any obstruction from any corner. The appellant has, however, laid evidence to the contrary. of the idols or the management of the endowed property at any time. 13. Evidence has also been laid on behalf of respondent to show that the public also used to go to this Thakurbari for offering Puja without any obstruction from any corner. The appellant has, however, laid evidence to the contrary. Ram Kishun Sao, (P. W.1) has come to say that the villagers used to go to this Thakurbari for worship without any hinderance, but though a resident of Mauza Dayachak itself he had never gone in side this Thakurbari and in his cross-examination he admitted that he had never seen any male member, obviously of the public entering in to this Thakurbari. He, no doubt, stated that he had seen women going there on the occasion of marriage, but he admitted that no woman of his family ever went there nor could he give the names of the husbands of the women, who had gone there. Ramdhari Rai (P. W.2) also came to support this part of the story but being the author of ext.1, he appears to have a grudge against the defendant. He claimed to have gone inside the Thakurbari a thousand time, but he failed to remember the date month or even year of his going there. Ram Kishun Prasad (P. W.3)also came to depose on this point but he too could not say the date, month or year of his visit to this Thakurbari. As stated above, he was unable to give the description of the inner portion of the Thakurbari. The suggestion thrown he has denied it, is that he had litigation with Munshi Das, brother of Ramdas, the grandfather of the defendant, in connection with certain lands. Another witnesses on this point is Ram Lakhan Bhagat (P. W.4) but he came to depose without summons on being asked by P. W.2. The evidence of P. W.5 and P. W.8 has already been referred to above. The last witnesses on this point is Ram swaroop Das (D. W.9) of a different village, Gulab Bag. He claimed to have gone to the Thakurbari in question to realise rent from the two dedicators and ramdas, but no document has been filed to show that he had any proprietary interest entitling him to realise rent and not even the counterfoils of the rent receipt book has been produced by him. He claimed to have gone to the Thakurbari in question to realise rent from the two dedicators and ramdas, but no document has been filed to show that he had any proprietary interest entitling him to realise rent and not even the counterfoils of the rent receipt book has been produced by him. He came to state about the existence of a Dharmshala in this Thakurbari where, according to him, Sadhus and abhyagats used to put up, but the plaint does not recite any thing about the existence of any Dharamshala as a part of this Thakurbari though it stated about Sadhus, Saints and Abhygats coming and staying in the Thakurbari and getting their food and shelter there which assertion has been denied in the written statement as also in the evidence adduced on behalf of the defendant, the latter being acceptable. Not a single Sadhu or saint or Abhygat has been examined to support the case of the plaintiff on this point. P. W.9 claimed to be the Secretary of Harikirtan Samaj and stated that he used to arrange harikirtan in this Thakorbari always. Firstly, he did not state at whose instance i. e. whether at the instance of the public or at the instance of the dedicators and Ramdas he used to arrange for the Kirtan. Secondly, he had no concern with the management of this Thakurbari. He failed to remember if he had received summons in this case and stated that a man, present in the court, had asked him to depose in this case, but, surprisingly enough he did not remember the name of that man. 14. On giving my anxious consideration to the evidence of those witnesses for the plaintiff the evidence of none of them inspires confidence. 15. Nathuni Gope (D. W.2), Garbhu Sao (D. W.3), Pompal Sao (D. W.4), Ramashis Mistri (D. W.5), Sanichar Gope (D. W.6), Raj Kumar prasad Yadav (D. W.7), Gauri Sao (D. W.8), Mauzi Sao (D. W.10), Ramdas sao (D. W.11) and the respondent himself (D. W.12) have substantially denied about the visit of any member of the public to this Thakurbari for the purpose of offering Puja or about any member of the public making any offerings to the dieties as also about the existence of any Dharamshala and about the putting up of any Saint or Sadhu or Abhyagat therein. P. W.4, as pointed cut on behalf of the respondent, no doubt, stated that once about 30 years back when he went inside the boundary (Hata) of the Thakurbari, he found two to three hundred persons, all by caste Teli, undoubtedly, the same caste to which the dedicators belonged, present there. He, however, did not state that they had gone there for the purpose of offering Puja. The residential house of the dedicators being in the same boundary as the Thakurbari, the possibility of their having assembled there for purposes other than for offering Puja cannot be ruled out. In this connection his statement in examination-in-chief that none used to enter the Thakurbari without permission has also to be borne in mind. The statement of D. W.5 that he never sought for permission of the respondent for offering Puja in the Thakurbari is also of no consequence as he categorically stated that he never went to this Thakurbari for offering Puja. Rajendra Sao and Mahendra Sao being full brother of Sarjug Prasad, the defendant, and they being joint with him in mess and properties, the statement of D. W.10 that sometimes Rajendra Sao and Mahendra Sao also worshipped the idols cannot also help the case of the plaintiff. The criticism levelled against some of these witnesses for the defendant that they were incompetent to depose, is also without any substance. On a close scrutiny of the evidence of these witnesses for the defendants. I see no reason to reject their evidence on the points stated above. True it is that (D. W.12) is the defendant himself and is thus an interested witness, but his evidence stands corroborated by his other witnesses who appear to be quite competent and disinterested. Thus it is established that no member of the public ever offered Puja to the idols in question nor did any member of the public made any offering to the said deities for and Sadhu or saint or abhygat ever put up in the Thakurbari in question. 16. Exhibit 4, 4-A and 4b the extracts from the assessment list of the barh Municipality, which have been proved by Deokinandan Prasad (P. W.7)a Clerk in the Barh Municipality. 16. Exhibit 4, 4-A and 4b the extracts from the assessment list of the barh Municipality, which have been proved by Deokinandan Prasad (P. W.7)a Clerk in the Barh Municipality. While these documents show that the holding in question is recorded in the Municipality as Thakurbari and the appellant as its Karta, they do not show that the Thakurbari in question is a public one. Sec.83 of the Bihar and Orissa Municipal Act, 1922, no doubt, states, inter alia, that no tax shall be imposed on any person in respect to occupation of any building which is used exclusively as a place of public worship, but in the absence of the proceeding of assessment of this Municipality or any satisfactory evidence, it is not safe to hold that no tax was assessed on this Thakurbari, for the reason that it was a public Thakurbari. In these circumstances, these documents cannot also help the case of the respondent. 17. The next contention was that there were other idols in this Thakurbari than the three installed by the two dedicators. This might be so, but by itself it cannot lead to any reasonable inference about the Thakurbari being a public one. 18. Paragraph 4 of the plaint stated, inter alia, that as there was no temple for public in the locality, the dedicators constructed this Thakurbari for the public worship, (P. W.2) simply stated that there was no others Thakurbari in his village, namely, Wazidpur. Rani Lakhan Bhagat (p. W-4) and Maksudan jha (P. W.5) also come to state that there was neither Thakurbari near this Thakurbari in question, but (D. W.4) and (D. W.12) have stated about the existence of other Thakurbaries near the Thakurbari. in question, according to (D. W.12), they being open to public. Nothing material has been illicited in the cross-examination of (D. W.4) and (D. W.12; for which their evidence should be discredited. For reasons stated above the evidence of (P. W.2) and (P. W.5) fails to inspire confidence. It thus appears that there are other thakurbaries open to the public near the Thakurbari in question. 19. The evidence, either oral or documentary, other than those, referred to above, was neither referred to nor relied upon by the learned counsel for any of the party nor do they take the case of any party any further. 20. It thus appears that there are other thakurbaries open to the public near the Thakurbari in question. 19. The evidence, either oral or documentary, other than those, referred to above, was neither referred to nor relied upon by the learned counsel for any of the party nor do they take the case of any party any further. 20. In view of what has been say, discussed and found above, the irresistible conclusion, is that the three idols in question, installed by the dedicators, were their family idols and it is found and held accordingly. 21. Learned counsel for the respondent relied upon certain decisions, one of which, namely, that reported in AIR 1957 SC 133 supra, has already been referred to above. As observed in paragraph 10 of that decision the will in that case read as a whole indubitably revealed an intention on the part of the testator to dedicate the Thakurdwara to the public and not merely to the member of his family, and under clause (2) of the will the testator constituted a committee of management consisting of four persons, two of whom were wholly unrelated to him and clause (3) conferred on the committee power to fill up vacancies but there was no restriction there in on the persons who could be appointed under that clause, and conceivably, even all the four members might be strangers to the family. In the instant case the Samarpannama (Ext. B) revealed an intention to the contrary. 22. The decision in the case of Narayan Bhagwantrao Gosavi balajiwale V/s. Gopal Vinayak Gosavi and others, AIR 1960 SC, 100, was relied upon by learned counsel for the respondent merely to show that the existence of the dome on the Thakurbari in question would go to show its public character. This contention has no merit as their Lordships held that the existence of a dome or kalas on the temple was not at all a conclusive circumstance in deciding that the temple is a public one. The other decision relied upon was in the case of Tilkayat Shri Govindlalji maharaj etc. V/s. State of Rajasthan and others, AIR 1963 SO 1638. The other decision relied upon was in the case of Tilkayat Shri Govindlalji maharaj etc. V/s. State of Rajasthan and others, AIR 1963 SO 1638. It was held in that case that where the evidence in regard to the foundation of a temple is not clearly available, the question whether a Hindu temple is public or private is determined by relying on certain other facts which are treated as relevant. Their Lordships stated those facts which are treated as relevant. Their Lordships stated as the build of the temple in an imposing manner, the entitlement of the public to an entry is the temple, their entitlement to take part in offering service and taking Darshan in the temple and their further entitlement to take part in the festivals and ceremonies arranged in the temple as also their offerings being accepted as a matter of right. In view of what has been found above in the Instant case, this decision cannot be of any help to the respondent. The last decision relied upon was a Bench decision of this court reported in AIR 1977 Patna page 23 (The Bihar Board of Hindu Religious Trust V/s. Madan Lal Joshi ). In paragraph 10 of this decision while discussing the entry in the Khatiyan in the tenant columnas deity Shri Radha Krishnaji and deity Shri Shivji through Sebait hiralal and Madan Lal and Gajraj Gossain son of late Darsan Gossain resident of Sakchi their Lordships observed that the gift was made not to any individual but to the deity Radha Krishnaji and Shivaji and the defendant madan Lal along with Hiralal and Gajraj Gossain were only appointed as shebaits. Their lordships further observed that such a description of the property only led to an unerring inference that the property is a public religious endowment, and it was clear that the beneficiary was the deity. There is reference in this decision of the Supreme Court in the case reported in air 1957 SG 133 (supra), relevant observations of which have already been mentioned in para 9 of this judgment. There is reference in this decision of the Supreme Court in the case reported in air 1957 SG 133 (supra), relevant observations of which have already been mentioned in para 9 of this judgment. It may be useful to quote with respect the following further observations of their Lordships in the case reported in AIR 1957 SG 133 (supra): - "where the property is dedicated for the worship of a family idol, it is a private and not a public endowment, as the persons who are entitled to worship at the shrine of the deity, can only be the members of the family, and that is an ascertained group of individuals. But where the beneficiaries are not members of a family or a specified individual, then the endowment can only be regarded as public, intended to benefit the general body of worshippers". As found above in the instant case the idols in question have been found to be family idols. The choice regarding worshippers of these idols and Mutwalli-ship after the death of the two lady dedicators fell not on person unconnected with the family of the two ladies, but on their close relations Ramdas, his- heirs and Munshi Dass, obviously, specified individuals connected with the two lady dedicators. As further shown above the intention behind Ext. B of the instant case was the creation of a private endowment and not a public one. In AIR 1977 Patna 23 (supra) also their Lordships held that when property is dedicated to the worship of a family idol, it is a private and not a public endowment and further that the cardinal question is whether it was the intention of the founder that specific individuals are to have the right of worship or the general public or any specified portion thereof. The observations of their Lordships in para 10 of that decision (AIR 1977 Patna 23) have to be construed in the light of other observations of their Lordships referred to above. On the fact found in the instant case, this division Bench Decision of this court cannot help the case of the respondent. The observations of their Lordships in para 10 of that decision (AIR 1977 Patna 23) have to be construed in the light of other observations of their Lordships referred to above. On the fact found in the instant case, this division Bench Decision of this court cannot help the case of the respondent. 23 The learned counsel for the respondent relied on a decision of the supreme Court reported in AIR 1972 SC page 57 (The Bihar State Board of religious Trust V/s. Palat Lal and another) wherein it was held that where by a will certain properties were endowed in favour of an idol which was worshipped all along by family members and the public were not allowed to worship as of right and in the will also it was not made clear whether the public would be admitted as of right and intervention of public was neither intended nor allowed, it was a private endowment. On the facts found above, this decision supports the case of the appellant 24. In view of what has been discussed and found, above the irresistible conclusion is that the endowment created by the Samarpannama (Ext. B)was a private endowment created for the worship of the family idols in which public was not interested and it maintained its character as such all along and it was never a religious trust within the meaning of this term as used in section 2 (1) of the Act and it is found and held accordingly. 25. The result is that the appeal is allowed with costs and pleaders fee of Rs.32. The judgment and decree of the court, below decreeing the suit are set aside and the title suit no.2 of 1965 is dismise on contest with costs and pleaders fee according to the prescribed minimum scale. Appeal allowed.