Judgment :- 1. This revision is directed against the order of the Land Tribunal, Thanjavur, in C.M.A. No. 16 of 1977, affirming the order of the Authorised Officer, holding that the petitioner as a public Trust is entitled to hold only 5 standard acres under S. 5(1)(d) of Act 58 of 1961. 2. In proceedings under Tamil Nadu Act 58 of 1961, the petitioner put forward two objections before the Authorised Officer. One is that the petitioner-Trust being a public Trust of a religious nature, it is completely exempted from the provisions of the Act and, therefore, there is no question of fixing a ceiling area for the Trust. Secondly, it was contended that even if the Trust cannot be treated as a public trust of a religious nature, it should be treated as a private trust, in which event it is entitled to hold 15 standard acres. The Authorised Officer held that the Trust cannot be treated as a public trust of a religious nature and, therefore, it cannot be excluded from the operation of the Act under S. 2 of the Act, and that some of the objects of the petitioner-Trust being of a charitable nature, the trust should be treated as a public charitable trust. In that view, he held that the petitioner Trust is entitled to hold only 5 standard acres under S. 5(1) (d) of the Act. The matter was taken in appeal to the Land Tribunal. 3. However, the Land Tribunal agreed with the view taken by the Authorised Officer and rejected the petitioners appeal. 4. The contention put forward by the petitioners learned counsel before me is that the Trust in question is essentially a private Trust and, therefore, it is entitled to hold 15 standard acres, and that the view taken by the authorities below that the petitioner-Trust is a public trust of a charitable nature is erroneous and, therefore, it cannot legally be sustained. 5. The learned counsel, however, does not and in fact, could not challenge the finding of the authorities below that the petitioner—institution is not a public trust of a religious nature, so as to claim exemption under the provisions of S. 2 of the Act. 6. 5. The learned counsel, however, does not and in fact, could not challenge the finding of the authorities below that the petitioner—institution is not a public trust of a religious nature, so as to claim exemption under the provisions of S. 2 of the Act. 6. Therefore, the only question that has to be considered in this revision is whether the petitioner institution is a private trust as contended for by the learned counsel for the petitioner or is a public trust of a charitable nature as urged by the learned Government Pleader, appearing for the respondent. For deciding that question, it is necessary to see as to what are the dominant objects for which the petitioner institution has been founded. 7. The petitioner-institution has been founded by a deed of Trust, dated 28th April 1976. That deed has been executed by one Venkatachala Pillai in favour of one Sankara-Swamigal for carrying out the following objects from and out of the properties endowed under that document: (1) to perform the daily pooja in the Samadhi of one Viswanatha Lingeswaraswami as also the Samadhi of the said Sankara Swamigal in whose favour the document has been written, and (2) to perform the annual Guru pooja on the birthday of the founder as also to conduct Thanneerpandal in the pial of the Madam every year during summer. The said Trust deed also says that Sankara Swamigal can perform such other charities as he may decide in his discretion from and out of the balance of the income from the properties. Thus, the main objects of the Trust are to perform daily pooja and annual Guru poojas at the Samadhies erected in the Madam, to conduct Guru pooja annually on the birthday of the founder and to conduct Thanneerpandal in the pial of the Madam during summer. The provisions of the said deed of trust came up for consideration in certain earlier proceedings. The petitioner-trust which is called Sri Sankaraswami Madam was treated as a Mutt and the provision of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act were extended. The provisions of the said deed of trust came up for consideration in certain earlier proceedings. The petitioner-trust which is called Sri Sankaraswami Madam was treated as a Mutt and the provision of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act were extended. This was challenged by the Madam before the Commissioner and the Commissioner held that it is not a Mutt as defined in the Act, Relying on this decision of the Commissioner of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments, holding the Petitioner Madam as not a Mutt as defined in the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, the Authorised Officer held that the petitioner madam is not a religious trust of a public nature so as to get exclusion from the Act under S. 2, But, that does not decide the issue as to whether the petitioner Trust is a private trust or a public Trust as defined in Tamil Nadu Act 58 of 1961. 8. A ‘person’ has been defined in S. 3(34) of the Act as including any Company, family, firm, society, or association of individuals, whether incorporated or not, or any private trust or public trust. As per this definition, a public trust as well as a private trust will come under the definition of ‘person’. A ‘private trust’ has been defined in S. 3(36 A), and as per the said definition, a trust under which the beneficiaries are persons, who are ascertained or capable of being ascertained will be a private trust. S. 3(36-AAA) defines ‘public trust’ as a trust for a public purpose of religious, charitable or of an educational nature. For the fixation of ceiling area, a distinction is made between a private trust and a public trust though both of them have been brought in under the definition of ‘person’. Under S. 5(1)(d) a public trust of a charitable nature is entitled to hold only five standard acres except in respect of such trusts which will come under clause (c)(i) of sub-S.(1) of S. 5. Admittedly , the trust in question cannot come within the purview of clause (d)(i) of sub-S.(1) of S. 5, as it relates to only educational institutions and orphanages. Admittedly , the trust in question cannot come within the purview of clause (d)(i) of sub-S.(1) of S. 5, as it relates to only educational institutions and orphanages. Under S. 5(3A) the land owned by a private trust is taken to be a land owned by the beneficiaries under the private trust and each such beneficiary is deemed to be the owner of the land to the extent of the share of his beneficial interest in the trust and the extent of the share held by such beneficiary shall be taken into account while determining the ceiling area of the beneficiary. The explanation to the said sub-S.(3A) of S. 5 says that the founder of a private trust shall be deemed to be a beneficiary under such private trust, if any income or part thereof from such private trust is enjoyed by him or his heirs, or by his family of the family of his heirs. This sub-S. (3A) of S.S will’ cover only such private trusts under which either the entire benefit goes to certain specified persons or the entire administration of the trust is under the management of the founder or the members of his family. 9. In this case, sub-S.(3-A) of S. 5 cannot come into operation as the trust had been founded by the person, who is not alive, and so the trust is not being managed by the founder or the members of his family. The beneficiaries of the trust are the Samadhies, for, the dominant objects of the trust are to perform daily poojas at the Samadhies and also annual Guru Pooja on the birthday of the founder. It is true that there is a direction in the document to conduct Thanneerpandal in the pial of the Madam during summer. But, that appears to be an incidental object but not the dominant or the primary object of the Trust. As is already stated, the primary object is to provide for daily poojas at the Samadhies and also to perform annual Guru Pooja therein during which some sadhus are to be fed. If the petitioner institution is treated as a public trust, then it will come within the scope of S. 5(1)(d). As is already stated, the primary object is to provide for daily poojas at the Samadhies and also to perform annual Guru Pooja therein during which some sadhus are to be fed. If the petitioner institution is treated as a public trust, then it will come within the scope of S. 5(1)(d). But, if it is held to be a private trust then it has to be treated as a person who is entitled to hold 15 standard acres as it will not come within the scope of the provisions contained in sub-S.(3A) of S. 5, under which either the founder or the beneficiaries of the private trust can be taken to own the land endowed for the trust. Thus, the main question to be decided is whether on the language of the trust deed, the institution should be treated as a public trust or a private trust. 10. In the decision in Santhappayyar v. Periasami 14 Madras 1 a Division Bench of this court had to consider the nature of a trust created for the purpose of maintaining the Samadhi of a Guru. It was held that the grant in that case was not for the benefit of any section of the public either as a place of worship, such as a temple, or a religious establishment; and that the intention under the document not being to confer a benefit either upon the people in general or upon any class thereof and the grantors main object being only to perpetuate the spiritual family of his Guru by providing for succession in the line of his disciples and for the performance of religious services and guru pooja, the trust in that case cannot be said to be a public trust. In that case it was found that a few Paradesies were usually fed when Guru Pooja was performed and water pandal was also maintained in the mutt. Notwithstanding the same, Muttuswami Aiyar, J., speaking for the Bench observed that the institution in that case was in the nature of a private trust and that the performance of certain charities such as Thanneerpandal was not contemplated as independent charities in which any class of public was to have any direct or indirect interest. This decision was followed and applied in Prasandas v. Jaganath A.I.R. 1933 Cal. 519. This decision was followed and applied in Prasandas v. Jaganath A.I.R. 1933 Cal. 519. In that case, a provision was made in the trust deed that the whole of the income of the debutter property shall be wholly spent for the performance of the pooja for the deity installed in a private temple and also for carrying out certain charities” objects. The question arose as to whether it is in the nature of a public trust or a private trust. The Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court held following the view in Santhappayyar v. Periasami 14 Madras 1 that where the provision was that the whole of the income of the debutter property shall be wholly spent for the purpose of the deity and if the income of the property increases, to the feeding of the poor and the students, that provision by itself cannot make the endowment a public charitable one and that the provision about feeding of the poor is part and parcel of the main object of performing pooja to the deity and cannot be regarded as independent charity in which any class of the public was to have a direct and independent interest. A similar view has also been taken In the matter of Charusila Dasi A.I.R. 1947 Cal. 148. In that case, a trust has been created to preserve the settlors own private property. However, the settlement deed also made a provision for the feeding of the poor. The question arose whether the provision made in the settlement deed for feeding the poor will make the trust a public charitable trust, so as to claim exemption from the provisions of the Income tax Act. The Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court held that the provisions contained in the deed of settlement for poor feeding is only incidental to the pooja for the deity and it cannot by itself make the trust anything beyond a private one. This decision refers and approves the principles laid down in Santhappayyar v. Periasami 14 Madras 1 and Prasandas v. Jagannatha A.I.R. 1933 Cal. 519. This decision refers and approves the principles laid down in Santhappayyar v. Periasami 14 Madras 1 and Prasandas v. Jagannatha A.I.R. 1933 Cal. 519. As has been pointed put in Padmavathi v. Narsilal A.I.R. 1956 Bombay 81, for determining the nature of the trust, all the clauses of the trust deed have to be read together and harmonised with each other to deduce therefrom as to what is the paramount intention of the founder and what it in fact the dominant object of the charity. 11. Adopting the said approach of reading the document as a whole to determine the dominant object of the trust with reference to the intention of the founder in the present case, it will appear to be dear that the intention of the testator was to provide for the daily pooja and the annual Guru pooja in the Samadhis and for the performance of the Guru pooja on the birthday of the founder during which the Sadhus who attend the Guru pooja have to be fed. The other object of performing Thanneerpandal at the pial of the Madam is not a separate and independent object apart from the main object of upkeep, maintenance and performance of the pooja at the Samadhi. 12. Applying the principles laid down in the decisions above referred to, I am clearly of the opinion that the Trust in this case has to be held to be a private trust in which no beneficiary has got any special interest and which is not managed either by the founder or by the founders heirs. Such a private trust alone will not come within the scope of sub-S (3-A) of S. 5. A private trust is a ‘person’ coming within the scope of S. 5(1). That will mean that the petitioner as a private trust will be entitle d to hold 15 standard acres and not 5 Standard acres as has been decided by the authorities below. 13. This revision petition is therefore, allowed. There will be no order as to costs. 14. C.R.P. No. 3120 of 1911 —The petitioner in this case is a Madam called Sri Palswami Madam. The properties have been endowed for the Madam under a document d. 12th January 1903. 13. This revision petition is therefore, allowed. There will be no order as to costs. 14. C.R.P. No. 3120 of 1911 —The petitioner in this case is a Madam called Sri Palswami Madam. The properties have been endowed for the Madam under a document d. 12th January 1903. Under the said document, certain properties have been endowed by one Kuppuswami Raju in favour of one Govindasami who is a Sishya of one Sri Palaswamigal for the purpose of the upkeep of the Samadhi of Sri Palswamigal and also for performing the daily pooja and neivedyam in the said Samadhi. It also provided for the performance of annual Guru pooja in t he Madam. It also provided that in addition to the performance of the above poojas, upkeep of the Samadhies as well as the performance of the daily pooja and the annual Guru pooja, Sadhus who come and worship in the Samadhi are to be fed. The petitioner-trust owned an extent of 16.52 standard acres. The Authorised Officer held that the petitioner Madam is entitled to hold only five standard acres and in that view declared the balance as excess lands. The matter was taken in appeal to the Land Tribunal and the Land Tribunal also affirmed the view of the Authorised Officer. 15. The petitioner has, therefore, come before this Court challenging the decision of the authorities below and contending that the petitioner-trust should be taken to be a private trust without any specified beneficiary, which is not administered either by the founder or by the founders heirs and, therefore, it has to be treated as a person entitled to hold 15 standard acres. 16. In C.R.P. No. 2875 of 1977, it has been held that a trust created for the upkeep and for the performance of the pooja in a Samadhi can only be treated as a private trust and the incidental object of feeding the poor during Guru pooja and conducting Thanneerpandal during certain seasons of the year will not make the trust of a public charitable nature. Applying the principles laid down in the said decision, this revision petition is allowed, and the petitioner-trust is held entitled to hold 15 standard acres as a private trust not coming within the scope of sub-S. 3-A of S. 5 of the Act. No costs.