Judgment :- 1. This civil revision petition is against the order passed by the Taluk Land Board, Chittoor in ceiling case No.57 of 1973. The Taluk Land Board had initiated proceedings against one Krishnan Ezhuthassan for surrender of excess land. He died during the pendency of the proceedings. Thereafter the Taluk Land Board passed an order on 21-7-1976 to surrender 13.80 acres. This order was challenged by the legal heirs of Krishnan Ezhuthassan on the ground that the proceedings abated on the death of the declarant. !; This Court set aside the order of the Taluk Land Board and directed to proceed against the legal representatives under S.87 of the Kerala land Reforms Act. Fresh draft statement was issued and revised order was passed on 28-1-1987, whereby the Taluk Land Board held that the respondents have no excess land. This order is being challenged in this case. 2. The main contention urged by the State is that an extent of 7.73 acres of land was exempted by the Taluk Land Board on the ground that it was a temple property. The majority of the members of the Taluk Land Board held that the property belonged to a public temple and therefore it is liable to be exempted. However, the Chairman of the Board made a dissenting note, as he was of the view that the temple in question is purely a private one and whatever property allotted to such an institution is not liable to be exempted. The learned counsel for the respondents contended that the recitals in Ext. B9 settlement deed would show that the property was set apart for a public temple and therefore that property was liable to be exempted. It was also contended that the property was allotted to a Hindu idol and an idol being a juristic person the property allotted to it cannot be included in the accounts of the assessee's family. 3. The document is of the year 1961. It has been styled as a settlement deed. It has been mentioned therein that the settlor Krishnan Ezhuthassan had constructed a temple and poojas were being carried out in this temple and that he wanted to continue the poojas and religious ceremonies. Therefore, he set apart certain properties for this purpose. In Para.4 of the document it is specifically stated that the property comprised in A and C schedule are allotted for this purpose. Therefore, he set apart certain properties for this purpose. In Para.4 of the document it is specifically stated that the property comprised in A and C schedule are allotted for this purpose. It is stated that till his death the property would be in his possession and thereafter his eldest son would keep this property and carry out the religious functions. The details of poojas and other religious functions to be carried out are also mentioned in the document. 4. At the outset it may be considered whether under Ext.B9 settlement deed there is dedication of property to idol. 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 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. It has been so held in Deoki Nandan v. Murlidhar (ALR.1957 S.C.133). The Supreme Court observed: "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 (Gaunartha). 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 worship. 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." From the recitals in Ext. B9 document it cannot be held that the properties were dedicated to a public temple for the benefit of the members of the,public. The nature of the present settlement is to be gathered from the recitals in the document. B9 document it cannot be held that the properties were dedicated to a public temple for the benefit of the members of the,public. The nature of the present settlement is to be gathered from the recitals in the document. If the property is set apart for the worship of a family God, in which the public are not interested, the endowment is private one. The extent of the properties belonging to the temple, the course of conduct of parties, the supervision exercised by the founder and his descendants are relevant factors to be taken into consideration. The mere fact that people in the locality are allowed to worship in the temple by itself may not prove its public nature. However, from the long course of user by the public, it would be reasonable to infer that user was as of right. So also in order to ascertain whether a trust is private trust or not the nature of the endowment and its beneficiaries are to be examined. If the beneficiaries of the trust are ascertained individuals, generally it would be private. 5. "The distinction between a private and a public trust is that whereas in the former the beneficiaries are specific individuals, in the latter they are the general public or a class thereof. While in the former the beneficiaries are persons who are ascertained or capable of being ascertained, in the latter they constitute a body which is incapable of ascertainment. A religious endowment must, therefor, he held to be private or public according as the beneficiaries thereunder are specific persons or the general public or sections thereof." (See Deoki Nandan v. Murlidhar (ALR.1957 S.C.133). Mr. J.G. Riddall in book "The Law of Trusts" 2nd edition at page 85 has discussed public benefit in the general sense as follows: "The wider meaning of the term is that it must be in the interests of the public as a whole that the purposes of the trust should be carried out. This does not mean merely that the trust must not be contrary to public policy or to the national interest, or 'calamitous to the community', though clearly, if the trust did have these effects, the rule would not be satisfied. This does not mean merely that the trust must not be contrary to public policy or to the national interest, or 'calamitous to the community', though clearly, if the trust did have these effects, the rule would not be satisfied. The requirement is not merely negative, it is positive in nature: there must be some discernable benefit to the public at large from the existence of a trust of the kind proposed. And this benefit must be susceptible of proof: it must be possible to satisfy the court that some discernable benefit to the public will result from the existence of the trust." 6. The learned counsel for the respondents contended that under Ext.B9 properties have been set apart for the management of the temple and the temple is being used by the public for worship and the respondents also adduced evidence to show that during the festival in the temple people used to participate. These are sufficient to hold that the temple is a public temple. 7. In Mayne's Hindu Law and Usage 12th Edn. at page 1123 it has been stated: "an inference can be drawn that the temple along with properties attached to it is a public trust, (1) If the public visit the temple as of right, (2) If the endowment is in the name of the deity, (3) The beneficiaries are the public, (4) If the management is made through the agency of the public or the accounts of the temple are being scrutinized by the public." In the present case, there is absolutely no evidence to show that the public visited the temple as of right and the beneficiaries are the public. It is also proved that the management is made through the agency of the public or the accounts of the temple are being scrutinised by the public. From the recital in Ext.B9 it has been stated that is is purely a private affair where the entire properties were to be managed by Krishnan Ezhuthassan till his death and thereafter by his children. Under S.81 of the K.L.R. Act exemption can be allowed if it is proved that the lands are owned or held by a religious, charitable or educational institution of a public nature or a public trust. It is not proved that the properties of Krishnan Ezhuthassan were set apart for a religious, charitable and educational institution of public nature. Under S.81 of the K.L.R. Act exemption can be allowed if it is proved that the lands are owned or held by a religious, charitable or educational institution of a public nature or a public trust. It is not proved that the properties of Krishnan Ezhuthassan were set apart for a religious, charitable and educational institution of public nature. It is also not proved that the public trust was created by Ext.B9 document. The Taluk Land Board seriously erred in finding that an extent of 7.73 acres is liable to be excluded under S.81(1)(t)(ii) and (iii) of the K.L.R. Act. However, under S.81(1)(o) the sites of temple are liable to be excluded. 8. The order of the Taluk Land Board is set aside and it is held that an extent of 7.73 acres is not liable to be exempted under S.81. The Taluk Land Board may ascertain the extent of the temple site and pass orders of exemption under S.81(1)(o) of the K.L.R. Act. The assessees are liable to surrender the balance extent. The Taluk Land Board will pass revised order, on the basis of the observation made above. The C.R.P. is allowed. No costs.