JUDGMENT R. Jayasimha Babu, J. One Sundararaja Naidu, by his Will dated 7.12.1949 created endowments by requiring his legatees not to alienate the properties mentioned in the Will those properties being agricultural lands and requiring them to apply the income thereof for the performance of feeding of the people belonging to the community of the testator on the Panguni Uthiram day in Thirupparankundram; performance of pooja and neivedyam to the Swamy on that occasion; and to provide Panthibojanam every year on the occasion of God Kallalagar passing through Vaigai river on Chitra Pournami day to Vandiyur. 2. Certain persons claiming to belong to the community of the testator having applied to the Deputy Commissioner for Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments under Sec.64 of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act (Act No.22 of 1959) the Deputy Commissioner, after having heard the deceased appellant before us, a descendant of the testator, and the complainants, held that no scheme could be framed on the ground that the trust was a private trust. On appeal, his order was set aside by the Commissioner who held that the trust was a public trust, that the charities required to be performed were religious charities, and the beneficiaries of the charities are the members of the public. He, therefore, held that a scheme could be framed, and was in fact required to be framed. That order was made by him in Appeal Petition No.178 of 1973 on 23.7.1977. 3. The appellants before us thereafter instituted a statutory suit for setting aside that order. That suit was dismissed by the trial Court, and that dismissal has been affirmed by a learned single Judge of this Court on appeal. The plaintiffs have therefore, brought this Letters Patent Appeal before us. 4. Learned senior counsel for the appellants urged that the Courts below have lost sight of a vital provision of the Act and, therefore, have been misled into holding that a Scheme can be framed for the charities provided for in the Will of Sundararaja Naidu. Counsel referred us to the Explanation under Sec.64(1) of the Act, which reads as under: “For the purpose of this Section,” institution “means a temple or a specific endowment attached to a temple.” It is the submission of counsel that it is not every specific endowment that is an institution for the purposes of Sec.64. Counsel referred us to the Explanation under Sec.64(1) of the Act, which reads as under: “For the purpose of this Section,” institution “means a temple or a specific endowment attached to a temple.” It is the submission of counsel that it is not every specific endowment that is an institution for the purposes of Sec.64. and that it is only those specific endowments which can be regarded as being attached to a temple that can properly be regarded as an institution in respect of which a scheme can be framed. Counsel contended that the charities mentioned in the Will are not such as to be regarded as constituting specific endowments attached to the temple. Counsel submitted that the Will does not even specify any temple, that it does not also specify that the charities are to be done inside the temple, or in the presence of the deity, or only for the benefit of the worshippers. Counsel submitted that such a charity, even though it may be capable of being regarded as religious charity would not constitute a specific endowment attached to a temple. 5. We may first deal with the factual aspects of the matter. In the plaint filed by the appellants in the trial Court, the plaintiff has specifically stated that the provision made in the Will was for the performance of charities viz., feeding of testator's own relations every year at the time of Panguni Uthiram in Thirupparankundram performance of Pooja and Neivedyam to Subramanya Swamy on the above occasion and to feed by Arasa @ Pandhi Bojanam every year on the occasion of God Kallalagar passing through Vaigai river on Chitra Pournami to Vandiyur. The plaintiff, therefore, had no manner of doubt as to what was intended by testator Will. The charities required to be performed at least in so far as the second and the third are concerned were to be for Subramanya Swamy, the presiding deity of the Muruga Temple at Thirupparankundram and the Pandhi Bojanam to be performed on the Chitra Pournami day was to be on the occasion of the God Kallalagar passing through the Vaigai river on the way to Vandiyur. The performance of the Neivedyam was clearly a service to be rendered to the deity, the deity being Subramanya Swamy. The performance of the Neivedyam was clearly a service to be rendered to the deity, the deity being Subramanya Swamy. Pandhi Bojanam on the Chitra Pournami day was intimately associated with and was to be done only on the day on which God Kallalagar was taken in procession through the Vaigai river on that way to Vandiyur. So far as the first charity is concerned viz., the feeding of the people belonging to the testator's community, the place at which such feeding is to be done and as to whether the persons to be fed are persons who had come to the temple on that day has not been spelt out in the Will. What is clear is that the feeding should be done on the day on which the neivedyam is performed to Subramanya Swamy during the Panguni Uthiram in Thirupparankundram. There is no further requirement there that the feeding should be done in the temple, or should be confined to persons who had come to worship the deity on that day. 6. In order to appreciate the validity of the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellants that these endowments do not constitute specific endowments “attached to a temple”, it is necessary to refer to some of the provisions of the Act. 7. The definition of “specific endowment” in Sec.6(19) reads thus: “any property or money endowed for the performances of any specific service or charity in a math or temple or for the performance of any other religious charity, but does not include an inam of the nature described in Explanation (1) to Clause (17)”. It includes not only property or money endowed for the performance of any specific service or charity in a math or temple, but also the performance of any other religious charity, “Religious Charity” is defined in Sec.6, Sub-Clause (16) as meaning a public charity associated with a Hindu festival or observance of a religious character, whether it be connected with a math or temple or not. “Religious endowment” or “endowment” has been defined in Sec.6, Clause (17) to mean all property belonging to or given or endowed for the support of maths or temples, or given or endowed for the performance of any service charity of a public nature connected therewith or of any other religious charity; and includes the institution concerned and also the premises thereof but does not include gifts of property made as personal gifts to the archaka, service holder or other employee of a religious institution. “Religious Institution” has religious institution. “Religious Institution” has been defined in Sec.6, Clause 18 meaning a math, temple or specific endowment. 8. It is thus clear that specific endowments are religious institutions. Such specific endowments may be for rendering of specified service in a math or a temple or for doing charity in a math or temple. There can also be specified endowments for the performance of any other religious charity even when the performance of the charity is not connected with a temple. 9. Thus, the fact that the endowment created is one for religious charity and on that account is a religious institution. It does not follow therefore that every specific endowment is an institution for the purposes of Sec.64 of the Act. If the specific endowment is for a religious charity which is not connected with the temple, it would fall outside the scope of the term “institution” as it is used in Sec.64 of the Act and consequently, would be outside the jurisdiction of the Commissioner, or Joint Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner to settle the Scheme under Sec.64 of the Act. 10. Specific endowments which are not attached to temples by reason of the fact that no scheme can be framed for them do not, however, go out of the purview of the Act on that score. They remain religious institutions subject to all the regulatory provisions of the Act which deal with religious institution. There are numerous such provisions from Secs.29 to 49 excluding Secs.38 and 39. Such specific endowments which are not attached to a temple are amenable to the regulatory jurisdiction of the authorities. They are required to comply with the numerous requirements provided under those provisions, their trustees can be removed, Executive Officers can be appointed, and various other supervisory powers exercised in relation to those endowments. Such specific endowments which are not attached to a temple are amenable to the regulatory jurisdiction of the authorities. They are required to comply with the numerous requirements provided under those provisions, their trustees can be removed, Executive Officers can be appointed, and various other supervisory powers exercised in relation to those endowments. Sec.39 like Sec.64 of the Act is applicable to specific endowments made for the performance of any service or charity connected with a temple. That Section unlike Sec.64 is also applicable to specific endowments connected with a math. 11. the term ‘attached’ in Sec.64(1) Explanation has not been defined anywhere in the Act. Light is thrown on the content of the term by Sec.6(19) which refers to endowments created for the “performance of any specific service or charity in a math or temple”. The terms employed in Sec.39 are “performed of any service or charity connected with a Math or Temple”. The term ‘attached’ used in the Explanation to Sec.64(1) is required to be understood broadly in that sense of providing for the performance of any service of charity in or connected with the temple. It is the making of a provision for the rendering of a service of the charity in or connected with a temple that renders such specific endowment one which is ‘attached’ to the temple. 12. The use of the words “performance in a temple” in Sec.6(19) however, is not to be regarded as confining it's application only to the performance within the physical precincts of the temple. If the service is to the deity even when the deity is taken out in procession outside the temple, the service being one meant for the deity of the temple such a service should be regarded as one which is meant for the deity in a temple. The emphasis here is not on the place at which the services is rendered, but on the fact that it is a service rendered to the temple. When there is a temple as a matter of customs there is a practice of taking the deity in procession and permitting the observance of charities and services outside the precincts of the temple, such charity or service has to be regarded as charity or service in a temple. It is the object of the endowment that its material, and the intimate link between the service and the deity. 13. It is the object of the endowment that its material, and the intimate link between the service and the deity. 13. Applying the test aforementioned, it is clear that the second and their objects of the testator when he created the endowment viz., offering neivedyam to the swamy on the occasion of Panguni Uthiram and the feeding by Pandhi Bojanam on the occasion of Kallalagar passing through the Vaigai river are religious charities, and also constitute a service to the deity in the temple. The framing of a Scheme in respect of these matters was within the ambit of the power of the authorities under Sec.64 of the Act. 14. As regards the first religious charity, the feeding of the community people on the occasion of Panguni Uthiram. It is not very clear as to where that charity is to be performed. In the absence of any prohibition as to performing that charity outside the temple, performing that service outside the temple must be regarded as permissible. That fact combined with the fact that the service is not required to be confined to those pilgrims who worship the Swamy on that day, and the further fact that the charity is to be confined to the members of the community who alone are to partake in the mass feeding on hat day, we are inclined to hold that while that may constitute a religious charity, it would not constitute a specific endowment attached to the temple. 15. The judgments and decrees of the Courts below are, therefore, modified, and it is declared that to the extent the Commissioner has declared that the scheme can be framed for the whole of the charities dealt with in the Will of Sundararaja Naidu, the same shall stand modified and the Scheme to be framed shall be confined to the specific endowments attached to the temple viz., performance of Pooja and Neivedyam to Subramanya Swamy on the occasion of Panguni Uthiram and by feeding by way of Pandhi Bojanam on the occasion of God Kallalagar passing through Vaigai river on the Chitra Pournami day at Vandiyur. It is ordered accordingly. No costs. 16. Consequently, pending C.M.Ps., if any, are closed. Allowed in part.