JUDGMENT: Defendants 2 to 6 are the appellants before me in this appeal. This arises out of O.S.No.52 of 1976 which is a statutory suit for cancellation of the order passed by the Commissioner, H.R. and C.E., Madras in A.S.P.No.85 of 1975 dated 27-6-1976 and for further declaration that Sri Harihara Arunachaleswarar Karthikai Guru Pooja Dharma, Veekrakaralampudur, Tenkasi Taluk is a private trust of” the plaintiff. 2. The plaint averments are as follows: Plaintiffs 1 to 3 are the children, while the fourth plaintiff is the wife of one Arunachalam Asari. The said Arunachalam Asari, as the trustee with full right to the endowed properties succeeded his father and he has been performing the dharmam known as Sri Hara Arunachaleswarar Karthikai Guru Pooja Dharmam. The endowment has been founded by one Nainar Asari by a registered deed of endowment dated 17-4-1925 and the object of the endowment was the performance of Guru Pooja on the Thirukarthikai day in the Chavady of the house of the said Nainar Asari. The founder named himself as a trustee along with his mother and thereafter the succeeding trustee assumed the management of the trust by nomination, which was so provided in the deed of endowment dated 17-4-1925. There were several proceedings in relation to the endowed properties. Finally, it was decided that Arunachalam Asari and his ancestors were the hereditary trustees of the above Dharmam. Defendants 2 and 3 are the wife and son respectively of one Somasundaram Asari. The said Somasundaram Asari and his brother, Paramasivam Asari have filed a suit in O.S.No.32 of 1957 for framing a scheme in respect of this endowment. Arunachalam Asari died pending that suit. The plaintiffs were impleaded as defendants 8 to 11 in that suit as his legal representatives. After contest, the suit was dismissed on 22-12-1960. Therefore, the plaintiffs therein, Somasundaram Asari and Parama-siva Asari, preferred A.S.No.90 of 1961 on the file of the District Court, Tirunelveli. The said appeal was also dismissed on 30-8-1961. Thereafter, Somasundaram Asari has set up his wife and son to file an application before the Deputy Commissioner of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Madurai in O.A.No.34 of 1966 by joining defendants 3 to 6 and another under sections 63(a) and 64(1) of the Tamil Nadu Act 22 of 1939 for declaration that Arunachaleswarar Dharmam is a religious institution. Thereafter, Somasundaram Asari has set up his wife and son to file an application before the Deputy Commissioner of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Madurai in O.A.No.34 of 1966 by joining defendants 3 to 6 and another under sections 63(a) and 64(1) of the Tamil Nadu Act 22 of 1939 for declaration that Arunachaleswarar Dharmam is a religious institution. There was a further prayer relating to the framing of a scheme for the endowment and administration of the same. These were resisted on several grounds. The Deputy Commissioner, by his order dated 9-2-1972 held that there was no temple as Sri Hara Arunachaleswarar temple and the properties have been endowed for the performance of Sri Hara Arunachaleswarar Karthigai Guru Pooja Dharmam on Thirukarthikai day and the Guru Pooja consists of performance of Pooja and the reading of Arunachaleswarer Puranam and feeding. Aggrieved by this order, the matter was put up in appeal in A.P.No.85 of 1974. That appeal was dismissed. Hence the present suit. 3. The first defendant in his written statement contended that the reading of Arunachalapuranam and feeding are objectives of public charity. That order is correct. So far as the earlier suit is concerned, viz., 0.S.No.32 of 1957, this defendant was not party to that suit. 4. The appellants herein, as defendants 2 to 6, resisted the plaintiffs’ claim stating that Nainar Asari started the Dharmam nine days before Thiru Karthigai day every year in the Chavady of his house by reading Arunachalapuranam and doing pooja every day and feeding the public on the 10th day on Thirukarthigai day on a large scale. It was with this object, the properties were endowed by a document dated 17-4-1925. After his death, his widow Kalyaniammal continued to perform the Dharmam till her death. This Dharmam is a public charity. In fact, the plaintiffs, before and after O.S.No.32 of 1957, admitted that the trust is a public trust and performed the Dharmam as a public charity. Hence the plaintiffs are estopped from Contending to the contrary. The decisions rendered by the Deputy Commissioner, which were confirmed in appeal by the Commissioner, are perfectly correct and no exception could be taken to the same. 5. On these pleading, the following issues were set down for trial: 1. Hence the plaintiffs are estopped from Contending to the contrary. The decisions rendered by the Deputy Commissioner, which were confirmed in appeal by the Commissioner, are perfectly correct and no exception could be taken to the same. 5. On these pleading, the following issues were set down for trial: 1. Whether Sri Hara Arunachaleswarar Karthigai Guru Pooja Dharmam is private trust and whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the right of manangement of the same? (1985) 1 MLJ 360 at 362 2. Whether the proceedings in O.A.No.34 of 1966 on the file of the Deputy Commissioner, H.R., and C.E., Department and A.P.No.85 of 1974 on the file of 1st defendant are barred by res judicata in view of the findings in O.S.No.32 of 1957 on the file of this Court and A.S.No.90 of 1961 on the file of District Court, Tirunelveli? 3. Whether the suit is barred by time? 4. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the reliefs as prayed for? 5. To what relief, are the plaintiffs entitled? 6. Learned Subordinate Judge of Tirunelveli, on a consideration of the oral and documentary evidence on Issues 1 and 2, came to the conclusion that the finding of the Commissioner that the trust is a public one and the Dharmam is a public religious charity is not correct, that the proceedings in O.A.No.34 of 1977 and A.P.No.85 of 1974 are not barred by res judicata in view of the findings is O.S.No.32 of 1957 on the file of Sub Court, Tirunelveli and A.S.No.90 of 1961 on the file of the District Court, Tirunelveli and that the Dharmam in question is a private trust and the plaintiffs are entitled to the right of the management of the same. Thus, he found Issue No.1 in the affirmative and Issue No.2 in the negative. As regards limitation, it was answered that the suit is not barred by limitation. On Issue No.4 it was concluded that the plaintiffs were entitled to a decree for cancellation of the order dated 27-6-1975 passed by the first defendant in A.P.No.85 of 1974. Consequent to these findings, under Issue No.5 the suit was decreed as prayed for. Aggrieved by this judgment and decree, defendants 2 and 6 have come up in appeal. 7. On Issue No.4 it was concluded that the plaintiffs were entitled to a decree for cancellation of the order dated 27-6-1975 passed by the first defendant in A.P.No.85 of 1974. Consequent to these findings, under Issue No.5 the suit was decreed as prayed for. Aggrieved by this judgment and decree, defendants 2 and 6 have come up in appeal. 7. It is the contention of Mr.M.Velu-swami, learned counsel for the appellants that under section 6(16) of the Tamil Nadu Act 22 of 1959, ‘religious charity’ need not be connected with a math or temple as has been wrongly assumed by the court below. It is enough if it is associated with a Hindu festival or observance of a religious character. As a matter of fact, the point came up for consideration before the Supreme Court in Commr.H.R. and C.E. v. Narayana Commr.H.R. and C.E. v. Narayana (1965)2 S.C.J.431=(1965)2 An.W.R. (S.C.)47=(1965)2 MLJ. (S.C.) 47=(1965)3 S.C.R.168=A.I.R.1965 S.C.1916. Therefore, if on a religious festival day or on a day, which is a part of religious, namely Thirukarthigai day, the feeding is done to the general public it will fall within the definition of section 6(16). Similar is the view taken in Radhakrishna Chettiar v. Hindu. Religious and Charitable Endowment Department Radhakrishna Chettiar v. Hindu. Religious and Charitable Endowment Department (1960)1 MLJ.494=(1960) M.W.N.198. In Executive Officer, S.R.Devasthanam v. Sesha Iyengar Trust Executive Officer, S.R.Devasthanam v. Sesha Iyengar Trust (1979)2 MLJ.280, the question of mandagapadi came up for consideration. The court below is wrong in concluding that there must be an idol to constitute a temple. There is no need for an idol, as evident from the decision reported in Pichai v. Commissioner, H.R. and C.E. Pichai v. Commissioner, H.R. and C.E. (1971)1 MLJ.166: A.I.R.1971 Mad.405, Besides, the court below erred in assuming that there has been no dedication. On the contrary, the authorities constituted under the Tamil Nadu Act 22 of 1959 clearly held as to the nature of charity. Unless and until there is evidence to the contrary, those orders cannot be set aside. 8. Learned Government Pleader also supports the stand of Mr.M.Veluswamy. 9. Learned counsel for the respondents/ plaintiffs would contend that first and foremost there is no public charity at all inasmuch as there is no dedication to the public. There is no public nature involved in the Dharmam contained in Exhibit A-3. 8. Learned Government Pleader also supports the stand of Mr.M.Veluswamy. 9. Learned counsel for the respondents/ plaintiffs would contend that first and foremost there is no public charity at all inasmuch as there is no dedication to the public. There is no public nature involved in the Dharmam contained in Exhibit A-3. The mere distribution of prasadam on a particular day after reading Arunachalapuranam would not constitute a public charity. The partaking of public is utterly lacking. Therefore, none of the authorities cited by the appellant can advance his case. Besides, the order of the Deputy Commissioner, as evidenced by Exhibit B-1, would clearly show that there is no temple as Arunachaleswarar or Lingam in the Chavady. All these aspects came up for consideration in O.S.No.32 of 1957, where it was held that the trust in question is a private trust. That judgment rendered by the learned Subordinate Judge, as evidenced by Exhibit A-4 was confirmed by the learned District Judge of Tirunelveli in A.S.No.90 of 1961 vide Exhibit A-5. Therefore, the matter is no longer res integra. From this point of view, no exception can be taken to the finding of the trial court. 10. Having regard to the arguments, the one and the only question that arises for my consideration is whether Sri Hara Arunachaleswarar Karthigai Guru Pooja Dharmam would fall within the definition of ‘religious charity’ under section 6(16) of the Tamil Nadu Act 22 of 1959. 11. In order to appreciate these aspects, firstly I have to refer to Exhibit A-3. In Exhibit A-3, there is absolutely no mention about the religious charity. All that it states is that in the house of Nainar Asari there has been established Sri Arunachaleswarar for which Karthigai Guru Pooja Dharmam has been performed. It further states that in the Chavady of the house, every year on Thirukarthigai day Dharmam is performed and that shall be continued. As to what exactly was the nature of dharmam can be culled out from Exhibit A-4, which is the judgment rendered in O.S.No.32 of 1957 on the file of the Sub Court, Tirunelveli, learned Subordinate Judge, by judgment dated 22.12.1960 on an elaborate consideration came to the following conclusion on Issue No.1 viz., whether the trust in dispute is a public one and whether the suit is not maintainable without sanction as alleged? In paragraph 16 of the judgment, this aspect has been dealt with. He held, after referring to Exhibit B-3 in that case, which is Exhibit A-3 in the present case, dated 17-4-1925 as follows: “Exhibit B-3 dated 17-4-1925 is the Registration copy of the endowment document. The document recites that Dharmam was being performed by the ancestors of Nainar Achari II who continued to do the same and Dharmam was being performed in the Western Chavadi. There is no mention therein about any public nature of the Dharmam. According to the evidence of P.W.1 at the most a sum of Rs.100/-was spent prior to 15 years ago but for the past 15 years after the 1st defendant took charge, at the rate of Rs.25 per year. But the witness on the side of the defendants spoke to the fact that only a sum of Rs.25/-was spent for Neivedyam and there was no feeding. From the income that was spent, obviously it could not be a public trust. P.Ws.1 to 3 deposed that it was only open to the relatives in their caste and not to the general public. But the witnesses on the side of the defendants stated that the general public also took part. It might be that some outsiders would have come and taken part of the pooja and there is nothing to show that they have right in it. The 1st defendant's father did not make mention about the public nature of the trust in O.S.No.355 of 1955 on the file of the District Munsif's Court, Tenkasi, P.W.1's wife sent notice to the 1st defendant under Exhibit B-18 dated 25-2-1957. The 1st defendant sent a reply under Exhibit B-19 dated 15-3-1957. It is significant there was no mention at all about the public nature of the trust. It appears that the present plea of the public trust is only an after-thought solely for non-suiting the plaintiffs on that ground, because section 92 is a bar, in the absence of a sanction from the Advocate General. So, in the circumstances, I find the trust is a private trust and not a public trust and section 92 a had no application.” It was this judgment which was taken up in appeal by the plaintiffs, viz., Somasundaram Achari and Paramasivam Achari. Learned District Judge, by its judgment dated 30-8-1961 confirmed the judgment, as seen from Exhibit A-5. So, in the circumstances, I find the trust is a private trust and not a public trust and section 92 a had no application.” It was this judgment which was taken up in appeal by the plaintiffs, viz., Somasundaram Achari and Paramasivam Achari. Learned District Judge, by its judgment dated 30-8-1961 confirmed the judgment, as seen from Exhibit A-5. It was after this, the proceedings under section 63-A of the Tamil Nadu Act 22 of 1959 took place. The Deputy Commissioner, H.R. and C.E. Madurai held as follows: “I have already found that the suit trust is a public religious charity, but not connected with any temple or math. Though it would consitute as a specific endowment still it is not a specific endowment attached to any temple. I am of the view that section 64(1) of the Tamil Nadu Act 22 of 1959 may not enable the Deputy Commissioner to settle a scheme for the proper administration of the suit trust. It is a lacuna in the Act. In the result, I find that the suit trust is a religious institution as defined in the Tamil Nadu Act 22 of 1959 and that section 64(1) of it may not enable the Deputy Commissioner to settle a scheme of administration for it.” In this view, he partly allowed the application and partly dismissed the same. One thing that is very essential to notice is that he held in unequivocal terms that on the evidence on record there was a temple, by name Arunachales-warar. However, he came to the conclusion that though the charity is not connected with any math or temple, there is reading of Arunachalapuranam and also feeding, and that both seem to be the objects of public charity. Therefore, he held that it was a religious charity within the meaning of section 6(16). It was this aspect which was confirmed by the Commissioner in A.P.No.85 of 1974, as seen from Exhibit A-1. Section 6(16) of the Act defines ‘religious charity’ as follows: “‘Religious charity’ means a public charity associated with a Hindu Festival or observance of a religious character, whether it may be connected with a math or temple or not.” This clause came up for consideration in Commissioner, H.R. and C.E. v. Narayana. Commissioner, H.R. and C.E. v. Narayana. (1965)2 S.C.J.431=(1965)2 An.W.R.(S.C.)47=(1965)2 MLJ. (S.C.)47=A.I.R.1965 S.C.1916. Commissioner, H.R. and C.E. v. Narayana. (1965)2 S.C.J.431=(1965)2 An.W.R.(S.C.)47=(1965)2 MLJ. (S.C.)47=A.I.R.1965 S.C.1916. In this case, the question was whether the feeding of Brahmins on Rathotsavam day of Sri Prasanna Venkitachalapathiswami Shrine would constitute religious charity. In paragraph 5 at page 1918, the Supreme Court observed thus: “We are unable to agree with the view so expressed by the High Court. The expression ‘associated’ in section 6(13) of the Act 19 of 1951 issued having regard to the history of the legislation, the scheme and objects of the Act, and the context in which the expression occurs, as meaning “being associated with’ or “in relation to.” The expression does not import any control by the authorities who manage or administer the festival. A Hindu religious festival or observance may have a local significance that it is celebrated or observed in a particular locality in connection with a shrine, temple or math, or it may be a festival or observance celebrated generally without any connection with- any temple or math. In the case of such general festivals or observance there is no one who can be so said to control the celebrations, and the definition of “religious charity- includes such general festivals and observance. It cannot be assumed that there must always be a set of persons who control the celebration of a festival or an observance. The test suggested by the High Court that in order that there should be between the charity and the festival or observance such a relation ‘that the administration of the charity must be controlled by those who celebrate the festival or observance in a temple or math, besides being inapt in the case of general festivals and observances can only be involved if words which are not found in the definition of “religious charity” are added thereto”. To the same effect are the other rulings cited by the learned counsel for the appellant, Mr.M.Veluswamy. In Pichai v. Commissioner, H.R. and C.E. Pichai v. Commissioner, H.R. and C.E. (1971)1 MLJ.166=A.I.R.1971 Mad. 405, it was held: “The definition of” temple “is so comprehensive as to include any place irrespective of installation of idols or a building or tower, dwajasthambham or a stupi. In Pichai v. Commissioner, H.R. and C.E. Pichai v. Commissioner, H.R. and C.E. (1971)1 MLJ.166=A.I.R.1971 Mad. 405, it was held: “The definition of” temple “is so comprehensive as to include any place irrespective of installation of idols or a building or tower, dwajasthambham or a stupi. It is not necessary in all cases that the presence of idols is an essential requisite to bring the place within the definition of” temple “under the Act.” But these rulings do not, in my considered view, help the appellant in any manner. Already, the definition of ‘religious charity’ has been noted. In so far as dharmam is done in the chavady of a house, which is purely private and as rightly held by the learned Sub Judge that there has been no dedication, it will not fall under section 6(16), merely because Arunacha-lapuranam is read and feeding is done on a particular day, it cannot partake the character of a public charity. In fact, as rightly observed by the learned Subordinate Judge, the feeding of those who assembled in the Chavady by giving prasatham cannot be considered as public charity. This is where the Deputy Commissioner, H.R. and C.E. as seen from Exhibit B-1 order, committed the mistake. A private character of a trust has already come to be established in O.S.No.32 of 1957 (Exhibit A-4) to which also a reference has been made. That has been confirmed by the District Judge, Tirunelveli. Therefore, the character of a trust having come to be established as private, unless there is a strong and cogent evidence to hold to the contrary, which evidence is certainly lacking in this case, I see no warrant for disturbing the finding of the learned Subordinate Judge. 12. In the result, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.