GUMAN MAL LODHA. J.—This is a defendants appeal against the judgment of the Addl. Civil Judge, Bharatpur, whereby the first appellate court decreed the plaintiffs suit as a whole which was decreed partly by the trial court with regard to the shop situated on the eastern side holding that the Idol had not been installed on the eastern shop but dismissed the suit with regard to the shop situated on western side holding that the Idol had been installed on the western shop. 2 The plaintiff-respondent had filed a suit against the appellants contending that the plaintiff gifted the disputed two shops on January 17, 1967 with the condition that the shops will be constructed upto Smt. 2024 and Idol installed therein else the gift shall be deemed cancelled. As it was not done, hence the gift deed stands cancelled and it be sold again. 3. The defendant contested the suit and contended that the Idol has been installed as per conditions and the suit should be dismissed. 4. After framing of the issues and hearing the parties, the trial court partly decreed the plaintiffs suit as mentioned above. 5. Both the parties filed appeals before the first appellate court. The suit has been decreed by the first appellate court. 6. Curiously enough, the first appellate court decreed the suit on a short point that no gift is permissible in favour of Idol although on facts there was no finding that the agreement (Ex. 1) had not been complied with. 7. Having heared the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that in view of the Full Bench decision of Madras High Court in AIR 1927 Madras 636, the principle is well settled that the dedication of the property to God by a Hindu does not require any document and that property can be validly dedicated without any registered instrument. This principle has been followed in AIR 1946 Oudh 256. It has been observed as under :— "The transfer of property to an idol is not bad if it is not covered by S. 5 Such a transfer of property is not subject to the provision of IT Act. He relied upon AIR 1927 Mad. 636." 8. A reading of the deed (Ex. It has been observed as under :— "The transfer of property to an idol is not bad if it is not covered by S. 5 Such a transfer of property is not subject to the provision of IT Act. He relied upon AIR 1927 Mad. 636." 8. A reading of the deed (Ex. 1) shows that the signatories Baldev Prasad and others took a gift for the purposes of installing an Idol of Narsinghji Maharaj which was at that time being kept in worship on the terrace of these shops and building. 9. Since there is a finding of the trial court that the Idol was installed on the ground floor in one of the shops, the conditions of deed (Ex, 1) were substantially fulfilled. I am of the opinion that the first appellate court has committed a substantial error of law, in accepting the appeal of the plaintiff and rejecting the appeal of the defendant, 10. Reliance placed upon the principles laid down in AIR 1966 All. p. 100 is misconceived. In my opinion, though the gift is for the purpose of installing the Idol of Narsinghji Maharaj, in fact, as the document shows that it is favour of the trustees and worshippers including the signatories of the deed (Ex. 1) who undertook to maintain temple and make renovations of the shops for the purpose of making it temple. 11. All the worshippers and the denomination having religion and the faith of the idol of Narsinghji Maharaj and particularly Brahmin society of Sikri would be represented in the trust to have interest in upkeepmg and management of these shops as temple. While doing so, the plaintiff who is donor, will have also sufficient interest as donor trustees for safeguarding the property and ensuring that it is used for the objects for which the dedication has been made and he would be made, trustee. 12. In the above terms, this appeal is allowed and the suit of the plaintiff is dismissed setting aside the judgments & decrees passed by both the courts below. The parties would bear their own costs throughout.