Judgment :- 1. Plaintiffs 1, 2 and 4 to 9 in O.S. No. 1057 of 1978, on the file of the District Munsifs Court, Palani, are the appellants. 2. Suit for declaration that the plaint properties are trust properties and, therefore, defendants are not entitled to alienate or otherwise encumber the same, and for consequential injunction. 3. The material averments in the plaint are as follows: Karuppa Kudumban and Chinna Karuppa Kudumbam are two sons of one Chinna Kudumban. Karuppa Kudumban had two sons by name Paramasivam (father of plaintiffs 1 and 2) and Pachiappan (1st defendant). The second defendant is the son of 1st defendant. Chinna Karuppa Kudumban had three sons, viz., Pannadi (3rd plaintiff), Mariappan and Samiar alias Karuppanna Kudumban. Plaintiffs 4, 5 and 6 are the sons of Pannadi. Mariappan, father of plaintiffs 7 to 9, was unable to attend to any work. So, plaintiffs 7 to 9 are looking after his interest. 4. On 1.2.1923, Karuppa Kudumban and Chinna Karuppa Kudumban endowed and dedicated suit properties for certain religious and charitable purposes by mean of a document and thereby absolutely vested them with the Trust created under that document. They have constructed a small ‘Madam’ and installed Lord Vigneswara idol in Item No. 1 of the suit properties. They have also placed a portrait of one Sankaralingam Pillai, whom they considered as their family God. They also installed an idol called Nandan in Item No. 1 of the suit properties. Karuppa Kudumban and Chinna Karuppa Kudumban dedicated the suit properties for the purpose of performing ‘Pooja’ to Lord Vigneswara and the portrait of Sankaralingam Pillai and for the purpose of putting up light in the Madam and in the Nandan and for the purpose of performing Maheswara Pooja during Panguni Uthiram festival in the Palani Hill Temple. They dedicated the suit properties permanently for the above said purposes. As per the recitals in the trust document, t he properties are not liable to be alienated either by the persons who created the trust or by their heirs at any point of time. Karuppa Kudumban and Chinna Karuppa Kudumban agreed to do the above said activities alternatively and the above said Trust deed came into operation during the lifetime of Karuppa Kudumban and Chinna Karuppa Kudumban. The objects of the Trust were performed by both the brothers. Karuppa Kudumban and Chinna Karuppa Kudumban agreed to do the above said activities alternatively and the above said Trust deed came into operation during the lifetime of Karuppa Kudumban and Chinna Karuppa Kudumban. The objects of the Trust were performed by both the brothers. After their death, the object of the Trust was performed by Paramasivam, the senior son of Karuppa Kudumban, and by the sons of Chinna Karuppa Kudumban. Paramasivam is now no more and the sons of Chinna Karuppa Kudumban have become old and they could not do anything now. So, the plaintiffs and the defendants were doing the activities mentioned in the Trust Deed. While so, defendants joined together and wanted to clutch the properties dedicated to the Trust, for themselves. Hence the suit for a declaration that the suit properties belong to the Trust, and for an injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the possession of the plaintiffs in respect of the suit properties as Trustees. 5. In the written statement, the defence that is taken is that there is no dedication of the suit properties in favour of any Charity or Trust, and what has been created is only a Charity for doing some Poojas in Temple. Defendants say that a charge has been created as Rs. 60/- only and, therefore, the ownership is still with them. It is alienable and partible. According to them, the injunction prayed for cannot be granted. 6. The trial court, after taking evidence, came to the conclusion that the suit properties are Trust properties and they have been dedicated for the purpose of charity and ‘Pooja’. The declaration prayed for by the plaintiffs, was granted. Against that, defendants preferred A.S. 122 of 1981, on the file of the Subordinate Judges Court, Dindigul. 7. The learned Subordinate Judge reversed the decision and came to the conclusion that on a reading of the document, it can be seen that the intention was only to create a charity and not a dedication and, therefore, held that the same is alienable and hereditable. The suit was dismissed. Against that, plaintiffs have preferred this Second Appeal. 8. At the time of admission of the Second Appeal, the following substantial question of law has been raised: “Whether under Ex. The suit was dismissed. Against that, plaintiffs have preferred this Second Appeal. 8. At the time of admission of the Second Appeal, the following substantial question of law has been raised: “Whether under Ex. A-1 Dharmasasana Deed, the properties have not been absolutely dedicated and have not become an absolute and out and out dedication especially when the propounders of Ex. A-1 have not reserved any right in the properties either for themselves or for their heirs?” 9. The only question that has to be considered is, whether there is any dedication, or whether only a charge has been created. 10. In A.I.R. 1952 Madras 650 ( Vasudeva Rao v. Rangai Gounder = (1951) 64 L.W. 574 ), after considering a similar question, and the circumstances under which a dedication can be inferred through a relevant portion of the deed which provided that the wife of the executant shall, after his lifetime, enjoy the property till her lifetime without effecting any alienation whatsoever, and she shall after deducting the amount utilised for the expenses of her maintenance from out of the income therefor, spend according to her pleasure a sum of not less that Rs. 70/- every year from out of the balance left over and conduct Skanda Shashti and Soorasamhara festival for Sri Subramaniaswami at Coimbatore. After her lifetime, the Hindu Religious Endowments Committee, Coimbatore Taluk as the Dharmakarthas (Trustees) of the above Devasthanam shall take possession of the properties, and from out of the balance left over after deducting from the income thereof the expenses of repairs and municipal tax in respect of the building, erect a mantapam in front of his house and conduct Mandapa Kattalai every year for the Amman for ten days during the time of Radhotsavam (Car festival) in the month of Masi (February-March) in Koniamman Temple. Provision was also made for conducting certain festivals in other temples. In a suit filed by the Trustees for declaration of title and recovery of possession, the contention was that only a charge was created, and there was no dedication. It was further contended that the dedication was only a portion of the income for certain purposes and the right in the corpus remaining with the testators widow and after her lifetime, vesting in her heirs at law. Their Lordships considered this. It was further contended that the dedication was only a portion of the income for certain purposes and the right in the corpus remaining with the testators widow and after her lifetime, vesting in her heirs at law. Their Lordships considered this. The importance they gave was that the appropriation of the income tantamounts to dedication of the property to the Trust. If we read it as a whole, what was mentioned in the document was, creation of a legal agency, i.e., to take charge of the property and perform certain functions in the Temples mentioned therein in the capacity of Trustees. Their Lordships, relying on the document, said that in order to create a valid dedication, there should be a specific religious or charitable purpose. Construing the document, their Lordships said that there was a direction that the income of the property should be appropriated for specific religious and charitable purposes and, therefore, there was a valid dedication. They further said that what was decided was that the property was given out and out for the performance of the religious purposes, and the testator had not retained any proprietary rights in the property in favor of any of his heirs at law. In paragraph 6, their Lordships gave importance to the portion extracted below: “.It is also important to note that the entire income has to be utilised for the various religious ceremonies. The document does not show that any surplus is to be had after meeting the expenses and as such, even according to the decisions cited by the appellants learned counsel to which we have referred, when there is no surplus income to be enjoyed by the legatees or the heirs of the testator, the only inference that is possible is that the entire property is dedicated as a trust.” 11. The said decision was again followed in AIR 1953 Madras 750 = (1952) 65 L.W. 368 (M.G. Narayanaswami Naidu and another v. M. Balasundaram Naidu and others) where their Lordships said that if there is no appreciable surplus income, and if that surplus income has not been earmarked for any purpose, then it should be taken that the entire property has been dedicated to the Trust. In that case also, in paragraph 6, their Lordships have held thus: “In a recent decision reported in ‘ Vasudeva Rao v. Rangi Gounder ’, AIR 1952 Mad. In that case also, in paragraph 6, their Lordships have held thus: “In a recent decision reported in ‘ Vasudeva Rao v. Rangi Gounder ’, AIR 1952 Mad. 650 (D) = (1951) 64 L.W. 574 , to which one of us was a party the question regarding the dedication of property where the performance of certain ceremonies was made a charge on the income has been considered and the conclusion arrived at is that if there is no appreciable surplus income and if that surplus income has not been earmarked for any purpose, then it should be taken that the entire property has been dedicated as trust. On a reading of Ex. P-1 coupled with the subsequent conduct of the parties and the judicial decisions evidenced by Exs. P-5 and D-13, we have no doubt whatever that Narayanaswami Naidu intended that the entire income from the two shops and from the bungalow should be utilised for the purpose of the mandagapadi and that these properties were dedicated in trust for the purpose of mandagapadi pooja.” 12. In AIR 1957 SC 797 ( Menakuru Dasaratharami Reddi and another v. Duddukuru Subba Rao and others ), the Supreme Court had occasion to consider a similar question whether there is a partial dedication or a complete dedication. Their Lordships held thus: “If the income of the property is substantially intended to be used for the purpose of the charity and only an insignificant and minor portion of it is allowed to be used for the maintenance of the wore shipper or the manager, it may be possible to take the view that dedication is complete. If, on the other hand, for the maintenance of public charity a minor portion of the income in expected or required to be used and a substantial surplus is left in the hands of the manager or worshipper for his own private purposes, it would be difficult to accept the theory of complete dedication.” 13. If, on the other hand, for the maintenance of public charity a minor portion of the income in expected or required to be used and a substantial surplus is left in the hands of the manager or worshipper for his own private purposes, it would be difficult to accept the theory of complete dedication.” 13. In AIR 1963 A.P. 130 ( Byreddi Narasi Reddi v. Thamballa Balamma), a learned Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court considered a similar question whether the grant in that case in favour of a Temple was complete or only partial, and held thus: “The grants in favour of idols or religious endowments are divided into four categories (1) A complete dedication in and by which the entire beneficial interest in the property is conveyed to the idol or religious institution; (2) A dedication to the idol or religious institution subject to a charge as to part of the income in favour of private person; (3) A gift only with reference to a part of the income in favour of the idol or religious establishment, and the disposal of the surplus for a purpose un connected with the trust; and (4) a grant of the property to a private person subject to a charge in favour of the idol or the religious establishment in respect of a portion of the income for purposes of service. The nature of grant, namely whether or not, the dedication is complete, is a question of fact to be determined in each case in the light of the material terms used in the document add by ascertaining the true intention of the parties to be gathered on a fair and reasonable construction of the document considered as a whole.” 14. In AIR 1972 SC 2069 ( S. Shanmugha Pillai & others v. K. Shanmugam Pillai & others ), it was held thus: “The dedication of the property to religious or charitable purposes may be either complete or partial. If the dedication is complete a trust in favour of a charity is created. If the dedication is partial, a trust in favour of a charity is not created, but a charge in favour of the charity is attached to, and follows, the property which retains its original private and secular character. If the dedication is complete a trust in favour of a charity is created. If the dedication is partial, a trust in favour of a charity is not created, but a charge in favour of the charity is attached to, and follows, the property which retains its original private and secular character. Whether or not a dedication is complete is a question of fact to be determined in each case on the terms of the relev ant document if the dedication was made under a document. In such a case it is always a matter of ascertaining the true intention of the parties. Such an intention must be gathered on a fair and reasonable construction of the document considered as a whole. If the income of the property is substantially intended to be used for the purpose of a charity and only an insignificant and minor portion of it is allowed to be used for the maintenance of the worshipper or the manager, it may be possible to take the view that dedication is complete. If, on the other hand, for the maintenance of charity a minor portion of the income is expected or required to be used and a substantial surplus is left in the hands of the manager or worshipper for his own private purposes, it would be difficult to accept the theory of complete dedication.” 15. In ‘The Hindu Law of Religious and Charitable Trust’ (Tagore Law Lectures) by B.K. Mukherjea - 5th Edition (1983) at pages 174 and 175, in Chapter VIII Dedication - Absolute or Partial, it is said as follows: “Dedication may be absolute, or it may be partial.” Where the dedication made by a settlor in favour of an idol covers and entire beneficial interest which he had in the property, the Debutter is an absolute or complete Debutter. Where, however, some proprietary or pecuniary right or interest in the property is either undisposed of or is reserved for the settlors family or relations, a case of partial dedication may arise. In a partial dedication the deity does not become the owner of the dedicated property, but is in the position of a charge-holder in respect of the same. A charge is created on the property and there is an obligation on the holder to apply the income of the charged portion of the property for the religious purposes indicated by the settlor. A charge is created on the property and there is an obligation on the holder to apply the income of the charged portion of the property for the religious purposes indicated by the settlor. The property does not become extra-commercium like Dubutter property properly so called, but is alienable subject to the charge and descends according to the ordinary rules of inheritance. It can be attached and sold in execution of a decree against the holder. Whoever gets the property, however, takes it burdened with the charge of religious trust. In Dasaratha Rami Reddy v. Subba Rao, it was observed by the Supreme Court that the question whether a dedication was complete or partial must depend on “whether the settlor intended that his title should be completely extinguished and transferred to the trust, that in ascertaining that intention, regard must be had to the terms of the document as a whole, and that the use of the word “trust”, though of some help in determining such intention, was not decisive of the matter.” 16. In Maynes Hindu Law & Usage - 13th Edition (1991), at page 1165, this question has been considered. The relevant portion reads thus: “A dedication of property for religious or charitable purposes may be either absolute or partial. In the former case, the property is given out and out to an idol or to a religious or charitable institution and the donor divests himself of all beneficial interest in the property comprised in the endowment. Where the dedication is partial, charge is created on the property or there is a trust to receive and apply a portion of the income for the religious or charitable purpose. Where records show the property in the personal names, in the absence of a document showing the dedication, it is partial dedication with a charge in favour of the charity. In such a case, the property descends and is alienable and partible in the ordinary way, the only difference being that it passes with the charge upon it. The same rule would apply where the owner retained the property in himself, but granted the community or part of the community an easement over it for certain specified purposes. In such a case, the property descends and is alienable and partible in the ordinary way, the only difference being that it passes with the charge upon it. The same rule would apply where the owner retained the property in himself, but granted the community or part of the community an easement over it for certain specified purposes. When a deed was in favour of a person as a manager of a particular temple, without mentioning the quantity of the expenditure for specific services and when the income was found very meagre and there was no indication as to how any surplus has to be utilized, it was held that it was a complete dedication to the temple.” 17. Mulla - Principles of Hindu Law - 15th Edition (1982), deals with complete dedication at page 521 and partial dedication at page 522. In regard to partial dedication, the learned author says thus: “Where by the grant a mere charge or trust is treated in favour of an idol, the dedication is said to be partial or qualified. In such a case the property descends, and is alienable and partible, in the ordinary way; but subject always to the trust or charge in favour of the idol. Where the surplus income, after the expenses of worship and ceremony were met, was to be invested in houses, for the residence of the settlors descendants, it was held that there was no complete dedication.” 18. In N.R. Raghavachariars Hindu Law, Principles and Precedents - 8th Edition (1987) at page 494, it is said thus: “ The question whether in the case of a gift to an idol with beneficial interests to the settlors heirs, the idol itself should be considered as true beneficiary subject to a charge in favour of the heirs for their upkeep, or whether those heirs should be considered the true beneficiaries of the property subject to a charge for the upkeep, worship and expenses of the idol, is a question which can only be answered by a conspectus of the entire provisions of the instrument of endowment ” 19. On the above principles, let us consider the provisions of Ex. A-1. 20. The value of the property was Rs. 1,000/- It says: Tamil Lower down, the document further says: Tamil Thereafter, the Schedule is given. On the above principles, let us consider the provisions of Ex. A-1. 20. The value of the property was Rs. 1,000/- It says: Tamil Lower down, the document further says: Tamil Thereafter, the Schedule is given. Before giving the valuation of the property, the various Poojas and charities have also been mentioned. A reading of the document makes it clear that the entire income is to be utilised for the purpose of religious purposes and the entire property is earmarked for the said purpose. Neither the settlor nor his legal heirs nor any other persons claiming under them are entitled to encumber the property in any manner. The last sentence, namely, clearly shows that the entire property is given for the said purpose. Along with the same, there is no provision in the document that if there is surplus income, the same must go to the benefit of the settlor or members of his family. In fact, we do not find that any portion of the income is to be utilised for the settlor or to the members of his family. The entire argument of the learned counsel for the respondent is that at least Rs. 60/- will have to be utilised for the purpose shows that a charge is created only for an amount of Rs. 60/- and not over the entire property. A reading of the document will make it clear that not less than Rs. 60/- will have to be spent and not Rs. 60/- alone to be spent. Probably that amount was arrived on that date taking into consideration the income at the relevant point of time. The description of property also makes it clear that it is not vast extent that has been intended for the charity. Along with the same, we have the evidence of the plaintiff and another witness where they say that even if the entire income is spent, that will not be sufficient to meet these expenses. Even though there is no clear statement that the properties are dedicated to the idol, the intention of the executants is clear that the entire income from the properties is to be utilised for the purposes mentioned in the document. That makes a complete dedication for religious purposes. If that be so, the finding of the lower appellate court that only a charge has been created has to be set aside. 21. That makes a complete dedication for religious purposes. If that be so, the finding of the lower appellate court that only a charge has been created has to be set aside. 21. The substantial question of law raised in this Second Appeal is, therefore, found in favour of the appellants. The judgment of the lower appellate court is set aside and that of the trial court is restored. The suit is decreed as prayed for. The Second Appeal is allowed. No costs.