Judgment :- MISHRA, J. 1. Sadasivam, J. allowed a writ petition and issued a writ of certiorari to quash the Notification of the first respondent, the State of Madras as it then was, in G.O.Ms. No. 2086, Revenue Department, dated 15-6-1966 under S. 3 of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959. The said notification was in respect of two estates known as Chinnanna and Perianna estates in Thanjavur Town. Chinnanna and Perianna were two brothers and they left their respective estates under separate wills executed by them. In the will of Perianna alias Venkatadasan dated 26-6-1975, a provision has been made for conducting bhajanai in the house which was/is in the occupation of the petitioner/respondents family. Bhajans were to be recited by certain Bhagavathars suitably qualified, who were/are to be paid out of the income from the properties set apart by the testator. Certain proceedings however were taken against his estate under the Hindu Religious Endowments Act (Act II of 1927) to declare the institution call ed “Perianna Bhajana Salai” a temple. The writ petitioner and others filed O.P. No. 36 of 1950 on the file of the District Court, West Thanjavur under S. 84(2) of the said Act against the decision of the Board constituted under Act II of 1927, which was the competent authority to declare the Institution Perianna Bhajanai Salai a temple. In the said O.P., it was held that the place where Bhajans were to be conducted was not a place of public worship and the public of a Hindu Community could not go to the place for worship as of right. The Hindu Religious Endowment Board under the Act preferred an appeal, but the appeal failed Treating however the two estates as one entity and a charitable endowment within the meaning of S. 6(5) of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 (Act 22 of 1959), a proceeding was started on the basis of a report of the Inspector of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (Admn.) Department, Thanjavur and as a conclusion thereof, the impugned Government Notification was issued. 2. 2. Sadasivam, J. who heard the writ petition, found that in the proceedings taken on the basis of the report of the Inspector of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (Admn.) Department, there was nothing to show that any of the objects for which expenditure could be incurred under the will of Perianna was a charitable endowment within the meaning of S. 6(5) of the Act, Learned Judge said in his order. “In fact the report of the Inspector shows that items 1 to 4, 11 and 12 in the will of Chinnanna dated 6-12-1887 are charitable endowments as defined in the Act. There is no such reference to any of the provisions in the will of Perianna in the said report or in the G.O. of the first respondent. The G.O. proceeds on the erroneous assumption that Chinnanna-Perianna estate is one estate. It is clear from what I have stated that Chinnanna and Perianna owned properties individually and they bequeathed properties individually under their respective wills. Thus there is no jurisdiction for the first resopondent to take any action against the estate of Perianna by virtue of the provisions contained in S. 3 of the Act.” Referring to the estate of Chinnanna and the will executed by him on 6-12-1887, Learned Judge noticed that he had made provisions for his sons, daughters and male descendants apart from making provision for funeral expenses of himself and his desendants, but the Inspector noticed the following objects of the will as charitable objects. “(1) Feeding of not less than 6 Brahmins in the chatram at Madigai village on every Dwadasi day. (2) Kollu Kanji to be supplied to the poor, pathasarigal (travellers), (3) Sathu-bathu (giving of provision) to Bairavies. (4) Water to be supplied to the pathasarigal (travellers). (5) The power of the trustees to increase the extent of feeding of Brahmins if funds permit. (6) Appointment of a Brahman as Caretaker of the Chatram to look after the supply of water to the travellers and to do pooja at the Pillayar temple”. 3. Commencing upon the above, in the light of the contentions raised on behalf of the parties before him, Learned Judge stated, “Item 5 mentioned above is only a power given to the trustees to enhance the expenditure on item No. 1. 3. Commencing upon the above, in the light of the contentions raised on behalf of the parties before him, Learned Judge stated, “Item 5 mentioned above is only a power given to the trustees to enhance the expenditure on item No. 1. The appointment of a Brahmin as Care-taker is also for the purpose of carrying out some of the above objects of the testator. Feeding of not less than six Brahmins on every Dwadasi day is the only object that could be brought within the definition of “charitable endowment” in S. 6(5) of the Act. Supply of kanji, provisions and water to travellers mentioned as items 2 to 4 above cannot be brought under S. 6 (5) of the Act as there is no qualification in the will that the travellers should be Hindus Thus, the provisions in the will for the supply of Kanji articles of food and water to travellers in general without qualifying the said benefits to Hindu travellers, cannot be brought within the ambit of S. 6(5) of the Act The impugned G.O. has not considered this aspect of the case at all, evidently as it was not put forward before the Government”. One of the arguments advanced before the Learned Judge was that it was open to the State Government to take action under S. 3 of the Act in respect of estate of Chinnanna in so far as the object of feeding of not less than six Brahmins at the chatram on every Dwadasi Day was concerned and the allocation of funds for the said charitable object was a matter to be considered under S. 63 of in Act. Learned Judge recorded his opinion on this argument as follows: “I have already pointed out that the single notification made by the State of Madras in respect of both the estates of Chinnanna and Perianna is bad in law. Further, the notification has not considered as to which of the objects mentioned in the will of Chinnanna would constitute a charitable trust. If there had been an enquiry about it, it would have been open to the petitioner to urge that as no Brahmin is available for being fed at the Chatram on every Dwadasi day, he was entitled to invoke the doctrine of cypres to divert the funds for other charitable objects. If there had been an enquiry about it, it would have been open to the petitioner to urge that as no Brahmin is available for being fed at the Chatram on every Dwadasi day, he was entitled to invoke the doctrine of cypres to divert the funds for other charitable objects. It is therefore not possible to uphold that the notification is valid in respect of the one object mentioned in the will of Chinnanna and sustain the Government order to that extent in respect of the estate of Chinnanna. It is open to the Government to take fresh proceedings in respect of the said object of feeding Brahmins provided in the will of Chinnanna. For the foregoing reasons a writ of certiorari is issued quashing the impugned G.O.Ms. No. 2086 Revenue Department dated 15-6-1966”. 4. When, however, the instant appeal was preferred and placed before a Bench of this Court, it found that the order of the learned single Judge was not sustainable for in its opinion, the only ground on which the learned Judge had quashed the Notification in G.O.Ms. No. 2086 Revenue Department dated June 15, 1966 under S. 3 of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 was that the objects of the charities were not exclusively Hindu and that provision would not be attracted. They said in the appellate order. “We are unable to agree, The objects are the following which are indicated by the founders. The first object is feeding of not less than six Brahmins in the chatram at Madigai village on every Dwadasi day. This is certainly a purpose confined to the Hindu and the charity is to be done on a particular day. The second object is supplying Kollu Kanji ro the poor pathasirigal (travellers). There is no reason to the think when a Hindu provides for a charitable object, that object is not to be exclusively Hindu. When the object is exclusively Hindu, it is not contrary to Hindu concept of dharna that clarity is extended to others. The founder was a Hindu and the object that he specified should be presumed to be Hindu unless the language completely justifies that it should be extended to non-Hindus as well. The third object is Sathabathu (giving provisions) to Bairavies. This is also Hindu in character. The fourth object is, water to be supplied to the pathasarigal (travellers). The founder was a Hindu and the object that he specified should be presumed to be Hindu unless the language completely justifies that it should be extended to non-Hindus as well. The third object is Sathabathu (giving provisions) to Bairavies. This is also Hindu in character. The fourth object is, water to be supplied to the pathasarigal (travellers). What we said in respect of the second object applies to this as well. The fifth object is the power of the trustees to increase the extent of feeding of Brahmins if funds permit. This is not a separate object, but it has to be taken with the first object. The last provision in the will is with reference to the appointment of a Brahmin as caretaker of the chatram to look after the supply of water to the travellers and to do poojas at the Pillayar temple. But this does not militate from the charitable objects being Hindu. Nor do we think that the last provision would convert the clarities into a sort of a non Hindu charities. We are, therefore unable to agree with the learned Judge that S. 3 was not attracted”. 5. The writ petitioner/respondent however, preferred an appeal before the Supreme Court in C.A. No. 1984 of 1975. While deciding to remit the appeal for a fresh hearing at a priority, the Supreme Court observed. “The learned single Judge who dealt with the matter took the view that the place where Bhajans were to be conducted is not a place of public religious worship in as much as the public of the Hindu community should be able to go to the place of worship as of right. In that view of the matter, the learned Single Judge held that there was nothing to show that by virtue of the will of Perianna, a charitable endowment within the meaning of S. 6(5) of the Act had come about. With regard to the endowment creat ed by Chinnanna, the learned Single Judge took the view that only one of the objects enumerated above, being the object of feeding of Brahmins, could alone come within the grip of a Charitable endowment and with regard to that alone, the Government could issue a notification under S. 3 of the Act. With regard to the endowment creat ed by Chinnanna, the learned Single Judge took the view that only one of the objects enumerated above, being the object of feeding of Brahmins, could alone come within the grip of a Charitable endowment and with regard to that alone, the Government could issue a notification under S. 3 of the Act. As a result of this finding, the learned Single Judge quashed the Notification leaving it open to the Government to take fresh steps in respect of the object of feeding Brahmins provided in the Will of Chinnanna. On appeal to a Division Bench of that High Court by the State of Tamil Nadu and the Commissioner for Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments, Madras, the view taken by the learned single Judge was reversed by a judgment which appears to us to be not meeting the reasoning of the learned single Judge. So far as the endowment of Perianna is concerned, we find no discussion in judgment. With regard to the endowment of Chinnanna, however, there is some discussion, but it is assumed that the endowment so cr eated is either a “Religious Endowment” or “on Endowment” as defined in S. 6(17) of the Act and that too without any analysis”. 6. Before we proceed to deal with the contentions in the appeal before us, we may take notice of the fact that the first Act that governed the religious and charitable endowments, that is to say, Act II of 1927 was repealed and replaced by the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 19 of 1951, which in turn was also repealed and replaced by the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 (Act 22 of 1959). This Court had the occasion to notice the repeals and reenactments only limited only to certain provisions of the three Acts particularly S. 77 of 1927 Act, S. 57 of 1981 Act and S. 63 of 1959 Act. In the case of Sri Singan Chetty Attendrooloo Charities v. The State of Tamil Nadu 1 this Court said that the provisions in the three enactments are pari materia and that an endowment, a religious endowment or a specific endowment as understood in 1927 Act continued to be so understood under 1956 Act as well as 1959 Act. In the case of Sri Singan Chetty Attendrooloo Charities v. The State of Tamil Nadu 1 this Court said that the provisions in the three enactments are pari materia and that an endowment, a religious endowment or a specific endowment as understood in 1927 Act continued to be so understood under 1956 Act as well as 1959 Act. The estate of Perianna was the subject matter of a suit under S. 84(2) of Act 2 of 1927. S. 84(1) thereof provided for the settlement of dispute as to whether an institution was a math or temple, etc., including the question whether any property or money endowed is a specific endowment as defined in the Act or not and vested with not the Board constituted under the Act with the power to decide any such dispute. Sub-S. (2) of S. 84 said, “Any person affected by a decision under sub-S. (1) may, within six months, apply to the court to modify or set aside such decision” Sub-S. (3) said, “From every order of a District Judge, on an application under sub-S. (2), an appeal shall lie to the High Court within three months from the date of the order”. 7. Facts which are not disputed are that the writ petitioner/respondent and some others filed a petition under S. 84(2) of the 1927 Act against the decision of the Board that there was a Perianna Bhajanai Salai, which satisfied the definition of a temple. The District Court accepted the case of the writ petitioner and others. The Board preferred an appeal before the High Court. The High Court affirmed the order of the District Court. The Boards order declaring the institution Perianna Bajanaisalai a temple was thus set aside. We have the advantage of seeing the report of the Inspector, which has been brought on the record. His report dated 16-12-1964 has referred to a letter dated 31-10-1964 of the Assistant Commissoner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment, Thanjavur, who it appears had asked for an enquiry under S. 3 of the Act 22 of 1959 and report. The endowment referred to in the report is described as charitable endowment Chinnanna and Perianna Estate, Manojiappa Street, Thanjavur Town, Taluk and District. The endowment referred to in the report is described as charitable endowment Chinnanna and Perianna Estate, Manojiappa Street, Thanjavur Town, Taluk and District. The enquiry, however, was confined to the charges relating to stoppage of the feeding of Brahmins on every Dwadasi day in the chatram at Madigai Village and allied matters, the only religious purpose referable, In his entire report, the Inspector has dealt with the objects in the will of Chinnanna and not in the will of Perianna. The impugned notification has stated several grounds in these words. “Whereas it has been represented to the Government of Madras that there are irregularities in the administration of the charitable endowment known as ‘Chinnanna and Perianna Estate’, Manojiappa Street, Thanjavur Taluk Town and District, as enumerated in the Schedule below: and Whereas the Government have reason to believe that the said charitable endowment is being mismanaged; and Whereas a notice has been previously published as required by the Proviso to sub-S. (3) of S. 3 of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 (Madras Act 22 of 1959); and Whereas the Government are satisfied, after considering the objections, that in the interests of the administration of the said charitable endowment it is necessary to extend to it the provisions of the said Act and the rules made thereunder; Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-S. (3) of S. 3 of the said Act, the Governor of Madras hereby extends the provisions of the said Act and the rules made thereunder. The Schedule 1. Feeding not less than six Brahmins on every Dwadesi day in the Chatram building of Madigai Village has been completely stopped. 2. No Brahmin is appointed to reside in the Chatram to supervise the performance of the charities as per the provisions contained in the Will dated 6-12-1987. 3. No chatram building at Madigai Village is left in a neglected condition. 4. No steps have been taken to collect rent from a number of persons who are unauthorisedly occupying about 4 acres of lands in Rajagiri Village, Papanasam Taluk for constructing houses for them. 5. No steps have been taken to bring the waste lands measuring about 400 acres for cultivation in Venkatanayakipuram village, Pattukottai Taluk though the Trust is deriving surplus income from the properties endowed. 6. 5. No steps have been taken to bring the waste lands measuring about 400 acres for cultivation in Venkatanayakipuram village, Pattukottai Taluk though the Trust is deriving surplus income from the properties endowed. 6. Major portion of the landed properties belonging to the charity has not been leased out to the best advantage of the Trust. 7. Sri T.S. Venkataswamy Naidu, one of the Trustees of the charity is utilising a major portion of the Bajanaisalai in Manojiappa Street, Thanjavur for his residence which is quite contrary to the provisions made in the will dated 26-6-1875. 8. Accounts and records relating to the charity for Fasli 1368 of 1370 were not produced before the Inspector, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments, Thanjavur Division for verification. 9. The surplus income derived from the properties endowed for the charity has not been brought into account properly”. 8. In The State of Madras v. Urumu Seshachalam Chettiar Charities 1, though provisions in Act 19 of 1951 were under consideration, a Bench of this Court considered the definition of a charitable endowment in S. 6(4) thereof and religious endowment in S, 6(14) thereof and said, “We have to address ourselves to the question before us, what constitutes a Hindu public charitable endowment within the meaning of S. 3 of the Act, Act XIX of 1951. As we have pointed out, that expression was not defined by the Act. Obviously it has to be a charitable endowment, before it can be a Hindu Public Charitable endowment within the scope of S. 3. “Charitable endowment” was defined by S. 6(4) of the Act. We shall leave out of account the reference to the Jain community in S. 6(4) and confine ourselves to the Hindu community. If we split up S. 6(4) into some of its component parts the resultant position is: (I) “charitable endowment” means all property given or endowed for the benefit of the Hindu community or, any section thereof; (2) “Charitable endowment” means all property given or endowed for the support or maintenance of objects of the utility to the Hindu community or any section thereof; and (3) “charitable endowments” means all property used as of right by the Hindu community or any section thereof. The institutions themselves in each of these cases are included in the statutory expression “charitable endowment”. Of course the word “exclusively” is not to be found in the definition. The institutions themselves in each of these cases are included in the statutory expression “charitable endowment”. Of course the word “exclusively” is not to be found in the definition. If that word can be read with this clause, that has to be read with reference to each of the three clauses we have mentioned above, that is, the endowment should be for the exclusive benefit of the Hindu community, or it should be used as of right exclusively by the Hindu Community, or it should be for t he support or maintenance of the objects of utility exclusively to the Hindu community The use of the prefix “Hindu” should have the same significance with reference to charitable and religious endowments for the purposes of the Act... It seems clear to us that the very definition of temple in S. 6(17) of the Act postulates the test of exclusiveness. It will not to be a temple at all as defind in S. 6(17) of the Act, if it is not dedicated for the benefit exclusively of the Hindu Community or if it is not used as of right exclusively by the Hindu Community. A place of public worship used as of right by members of all communities including the Hindus cannot be a temple as detined by S. 6(17); much less can it be viewed as a Hindu temple or a Hindu religious endowment. The expressions “for the benefit of” and “used as of right by the Hindu Community” should, in our opinion, have the same significance in relation to charitable endowments, as they have in relation to temples which are religious endowments. They should have the same meaning in construing either S. 6(4) or S. 6(17). In our opinion, even apart from the prefix “Hindu” in relation to public charitable endowments in S. 3, the very definition of charitable endowments in S. 6(4) postulates the test of exclusiveness. Unless, for example, the benefit of the endowment is confined wholly to Hindus it would not be a charitable endowment as defined by S. 6(4). The prefix “Hindu” to the expression “public charitable endowment” in S. 3 tends, if anything, to emphasise that feature. Unless, for example, the benefit of the endowment is confined wholly to Hindus it would not be a charitable endowment as defined by S. 6(4). The prefix “Hindu” to the expression “public charitable endowment” in S. 3 tends, if anything, to emphasise that feature. When the benefit of the endowments is made such a decisive feature of the statutory concept of a charitable endowment by the definition in S. 6(4) of the Act, we can see no scope for accepting the contention of the learned Advocate-General, that who the beneficiaries of the trust are is not determinative of the question, what constitutes a Hindu public charitable en endowment for purposes of S. 3 of the Act The learned Advocate-General pointed out that normally no Hindu would contemplate exclusion of members of other communities from the benefits of the public charity familiarly know n as a Water Pandal, if he were founding such a public charity. That was given only as an example. Establishment of a Water Pandal charity may be establishment of a public charitable endowment. But it is not every public charitable endowment that is brought within scope of XIX of 1951. Every public charitable endowment founded by a Hindu does not become a Hindu charitable endowment. The mere fact that the founder was a Hindu is not enough even to make a trust or endowment a charitable endowment as defined by S. 6(4) of the Act. Certainly it is no enough to make it a Hindu public charitable endowment. To being a public charitable endowment within the scope of S. 3 of the Act it is necessary to establish first that it is a Hindu charitable endowment. It will not be a Hindu charitable endowment, if the benefit of the endowment can be shared as of right by members of the public other than Hindus”. 9. Rajagopalan, J. and Srihivasan, J. who took the above view and issued a writ of certiorari quashing the Government Order under S. 3 of Act 19 of 1951, had followed an earlier judgment of this Court in Sri Ramanasramam v. Commissioner for Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments, Madras 2 which was a case concerned with a temple, but a Bench of this Court had said that a religious institution like a temple would not be a Hindu religious institution or a Hindu religious endowment unless it was exclusively Hindu in character. 10. 10. In S. 6(5) of the Tamil Nadu Act 22 of 1959, “charitable endowment” has been denned to mean all property given or endowed for the benefit of, or used as of right by the Hindu or the Jain Community or any section thereof, for the support of maintenance of objects of utility to the said community or section, such as rest-houses, choultries, patasalas, schools and colleges, houses for feeding the poor and institutions for the advancement of education, medical relief and public health or other objects of a like nature and includes the institution concerned. It is not at all at variance with the definition of a “charitable endowment” in S. 6(4) of the Act 19 of 1951. The same components as in S, 6(4) of Act 19 of 1951 are available in S. 6(5) of Tamil Nadu Act 22 of 1959 that (1) “charitable endowment” means all property given or endowed for the benefit of a Hindu Community or any section thereof, (2) “charitable endowment” means all property given or endowed for the support or maintenance of objects of utility to the Hindu Community or any section thereof and (3) “charitable endowment” means all property used as a right by the Hindu Community or any section thereof. The institutions themselves as in S. 6(4) of Act 19 of 1951 are included in the expression “charitable endowment” in S. 6(5) of Act 22 of 1959. The law stated in the case of State of Madras v. Urumu Seshachalam Chettiar Charities 2, in our view applies in all fours to the actions under the Act 22 of 1959 also because the words in S. 3 are also not at variance with the words in S. 3 of Act 19 of 1951. The prefix “Hindu or Jain public charitable endowment” is the same as in S. 3 of the Act 19 of 1951. 11. Thus coming to the facts of the case, we do not think it will be proper to add to the words in the will of the testator our own ideas to read that when the testator intended to supply Kollu Kanji or water to the poor pathasarigal (travellers), he wanted such benefits to go only to Hindu travellers) and not others. Since a Brahmin is a Hindu and there is a provision to feed not less than 6 Brahmins in the chatram, one can say that this part of the will constituted a charitable endowment falling under S. 6(5) of the Act 22 of 1959. That however is confined to the will of Chinnanna only. 12. Having considered the case as above, we have no hesitation in holding that the enquiry preceding the impugned G.O. was vitiated on account of the same being directed to Perianna estate also besides Chinnanna Estate No such enquiry under S. 3 was permissible in respect of Perianna estate as the authority competent to decide whether a certain endowment is a Hindu religious endowment or not had already decided that Perianna Bajanaisalai was a temple, but the same had been set aside by the District Court and affirmed by the High Court. The jurisdiction of the respondents if at all there was any necessity for enquiry under S. 3(2) of the Act 22 of 1959, was/is limited to the endowment to feed not less than 6 Brahmins in the chatram and the power of the trustees to increase the extent of feeding Brahmins if funds permitted. Sadasivam, J. has taken a correct view of the law and rightly decided that on the facts of this case, the Government order in G.O.Ms. No. 2086, Revenue Department, dated 15-6-1966 is fit to be quashed. 13. We accordingly find no merit in the appeal. The appeal is dismissed. No costs.