ORDER: The petitioner is aggrieved by the order permitting sale of the petition property by the first respondent herein at the rate of Rs.2,000 per cent. According to the petitioner, the property is Trust property and ought not to have been sold. The first respondent filed Trust O.P. No.4 of 1994 (in the matter of ‘Tirunavukkarasu Madalayam Trust’) under Section 34 of the Indian Trusts Act. The brief facts of the matter are necessary for appreciation of this revision: One Arumugam Pillai executed a Will dated 21.2.1951, Ex.P-1. The properties mentioned in the Will were endowed in favour of Thirunavukkarasu alias Apparswami Madam, an idol installed by the testator in one of the properties mentioned in the will. It was also called the Thirunavukkarasu Madalayam. The testator himself performed Kumbabishekam to the said Madalayam. He created “specific endowments” for performance of certain religious and charitable acts in connection with the Trichy Rockfort Thayumanaswamy temple. The devotees and poor people had to be fed and the deity viz., Thayumanaswamy along with the Apparswami idol mentioned above had to be taken in procession around the Rockfort temple streets. The petition property was endowed for performance of various religious charities including this. The Will provided for appointment of trustees and devolution of trusteeship. The first respondent claimed to be the sole trustee. He filed the above Trust O.P. seeking permission to sell, on the ground that the annual rental from the property is not sufficient, and the land being agricultural lands are in the occupation of cultivating tenants and that certain purchasers have approached the first respondent agreeing to negotiate with the cultivating tenants themselves if the properties are sold to them. According to the first respondent, if permission was not granted, the Trust would be put to great hardship. The E.O. of the idol of Thayumanaswamy filed his counter claiming that he was interested in the petition properties since the properties had been endowed for the performance of the one day festival in the month of Chithirai on Avitta Nakshathiram. The learned Principal District Judge, Tiruchirappalli considered the oral and documentary evidence. The evidence of R.W.1, who gave evidence on behalf of the H.R. & C.E. Department, was that Apparswamy Madalayam is not under the control of the department. The V.A.O. certificate was produced to the effect that the property would be worth about Rs.2,000 per cent. The learned Principal District Judge, Tiruchirappalli considered the oral and documentary evidence. The evidence of R.W.1, who gave evidence on behalf of the H.R. & C.E. Department, was that Apparswamy Madalayam is not under the control of the department. The V.A.O. certificate was produced to the effect that the property would be worth about Rs.2,000 per cent. It is the evidence of the first respondent that one Unni Krishnan and Rajesh were willing to purchase the property and to deposit the sale consideration into Court. From the order of the District Judge, it is seen that publication was effected and since no one came forward, the learned Principal District Judge was satisfied that permission should be granted for sale. 2. Mr.R.Subramanyam, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that this matter related to trust property and sale cannot be permitted merely for the asking. He also brought to the notice of this Court that pending the proceedings and the C.R.P. the purchasers have proceeded to make further alienation of the property with a view to nullify and orders that may be passed against the sale by this Court. He referred to the Will dated 21.2.1951 and to the various clauses thereof which would show that the testator had endowed the property in favour of the petitioner. He also referred to the definitions of specific endowment as given in the H.R. & C.E. Act and to Sec.34 which makes alienation of the trust property subject to the provisions of the Act. He also referred to the following decisions: Commissioner, H.R. & C.E. Administration Department v. C.V. Sundarsan, (2000)3 L.W. 468 , C.Rami Reddy v. Government of Andhra Pradesh, A.I.R. 1986 S.C. 1158, R.Venugopala Naidu v. Venkatarayulu Naidu Charities, A.I.R. 1990 S.C. 444 and Executive Officer, Arthanareswarar Temple v. R.Sathya-moorthy and others, (1999)3 L.W. 227. He submitted that when the Will clearly states that the ‘A’ schedule property must be utilised for the performance of poor feeding as well as processions of the deity of the Thayumanaswamy temple, the petitioner was definitely a “person interested” in the trust and his objections ought to have been heard by the learned Principal District Judge. He also submitted that in the matter of religious trusts and properties relating to them, Courts have to be extra vigilant especially when it comes to sale of trust property. He also submitted that in the matter of religious trusts and properties relating to them, Courts have to be extra vigilant especially when it comes to sale of trust property. It was further submitted that the consideration for which the property had been sold was very low and it was done by private negotiation. Though in the petition, it would appear that the property was sold as agricultural land, subsequently, it has been plotted out. He would submit that it should be the endeavour of the persons in control and management of trust properties to realize the maximum price in the event of sale of the trust property. A mere statement that these properties were in the occupation of cultivating tenants and therefore, will not fetch a high price ought not to have been taken at face value. 3. Mr.Loganathan appearing for Mr.A. Saravanan submitted that the petitioner is not at all a necessary party and had no locus standi either to object to the sale or to maintain the revision petition. If at all a person is interested in the proper management of the petition property, it is the Thayumanaswamy Madam and the first respondent being the sole trustee of the Thayumanaswamy Madam, the interest of the Trust was well safe guarded. He would further submit that the endowment is not a specific endowment and therefore, is not governed by the provisions of H.R. & C.E. Act and since there is no divesting in favour of the petitioner, the petitioner has no say in the matter. Respondents 3 and 4 though served, did not enter appearance. 4. The relevant extracts of the Will are as follows: 5. It appears from a reading of these recitals that the testator had endowed these properties in favour of Thirunavukkarasu Apparswamy Madalayam and in addition to all that had to be done in the Madalayam, these properties were also to be used for the Kainkarayams on the day of Avitta Nakshathiram in the month of Chithirai when the idol of Tirunavukkarasu alias Apparswamy would be taken along with the idol of Thayumanaswamy in procession in the streets of Rockfort and the poor and the devotees had to be fed both at the Pushpamandapam near Thayumanaswamy temple as well as the trust Madalayam. In fact, in the petition itself, it is stated as follows: “He also created specific endowments connected to the festival of Trichy Rockfort Sri Thayumanavaswamy Temple and feeding devotees at the time of the said festival besides taking the deity along with Apparswamy Idol in procession around the streets of Rockfort Temple. For the purpose of the said Trusts and Charities, he endowed the properties set out in the A Schedule to the said Will.” [Italics supplied] 6. In the decision R.Venugopala Naidu v. Venkatarayulu Naidu Charities,A.I.R. 1990 S.C. 444, the question as to who were interested parties in a public trust came up for consideration. A reference was made in that decision to the case in Raje Anandrao v. Shamrao, A.I.R. 1961 S.C. 1206, wherein it was held as follows: “....It is true that the pujaris were not parties to the suit under Sec.92 but the decision in that suit binds the pujaris as worshippers so far as the administration of the temple is concerned, even though they were not parties to it, for a suit under Sec.92 is a representative suit and binds not only the parties thereto but all those who are interested in the trust.” 7. It is futile to urge that the Thayumanaswamy temple is not a party interested in the trust properties. When the testator had endowed the trust properties for performance of certain specific deeds in connection with the petitioner, any alienation of the said properties is definitely a matter that would interest the petitioner temple. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be denied the right to object to the sale of the endowed properties on the ground that it is not beneficial to the trust. 8. The definition of “specific endowment” in the H.R. & C.E. Act reads thus: “Sec.6(19):”Specific Endowment“means any property or money endowed for the performance 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).” 9. In this case, the ‘A’ Schedule property Ex.P-1 Will, was endowed to the Thirunavukkarasu Madalayam for the performance of specific service and charity in connection with the festival of Chithirai Avittam in Thayumanaswamy temple. In this case, the ‘A’ Schedule property Ex.P-1 Will, was endowed to the Thirunavukkarasu Madalayam for the performance of specific service and charity in connection with the festival of Chithirai Avittam in Thayumanaswamy temple. Therefore, what was created under the Will was definitely “specific endowment” and it has been so admitted by the first respondent as seen from the extract of petition referred above. The deed refers to beneficiaries of the endowment who are the devotees and poor people. The endowment is with relation to an observance of religious and charitable character; ‘charitable’ since the poor are fed, ‘religious’ since the idol of Thayumanaswamy is worshipped and thereafter taken in procession. For this amongst others the founder had set apart the property and had intended that the income therefrom should be utilised for their performance. Therefore, definitely a “specific endowment” was created in favour of the petitioner and the decision in Commissioner, H.R. & C.E. Administration Department v. C.V. Sundarsan, (2000)3 L.W. 468 applies to this case. 10. Now, we come to the question of whether the sale to two private parties was in order. The grievance raised by the petitioner is four fold: (1) That the consideration is too low; (2) sufficient publicity was not given for the sale; (3) the sale was effected by private negotiation; and (4) after selling the property as agricultural land, the land has been plotted out which would necessarily mean that a higher value would be realized and this was denied to the trust. In this regard, we may refer to the following decisions cited by the counsel for the petitioner. 11. The case in Executive Officer, Arthanareswarar Temple v. R. Sathyamoorthy and others, (1999)3 L.W. 227 also arise under Sec.34 of the Trusts Act where the District Judge had declined to grant permission to sell the properties in which it was held that Courts have a general parence partria jurisdiction over trusts for charitable and religious purposes. 12. In the decision in C.Rami Reddy v. Government of Andhra Pradesh,A.I.R. 1986 S.C. 1158, the Supreme Court held thus: “We cannot conclude without observing that property of such institutions or endowments must be jealously protected. It must be protected, for, a large segment of the community has beneficial interest in it (that is the raison d’ etre of the Act itself). It must be protected, for, a large segment of the community has beneficial interest in it (that is the raison d’ etre of the Act itself). The authorities exercising the powers under the Act must not only be most alert and vigilant in such matters but also show awareness of the ways of the present day world as also the ugly realities of the world of today. They cannot afford to take things at their face value or make a less than the closest-and-best-attention approach to guard against all pitfalls. The approving authority must be aware that in such matters the trustees, or persons authorised to sell by private negotiations, can, in a given case, enter into a secret invisible underhand deal or understanding with the purchasers at the cost of the concerned institution. Those who are willing to purchase by private negotiations can also bid at a public auction. Why would they feel shy or be deterred from bidding at a public auction? Why then permit sale by private negotiations which will not be visible to the public eye and may even give rise to public suspicion unless there are special reasons to justify doing so? And care must be taken to fix a reserve price after ascertaining the market value for the sake of safeguarding the interest of the endowment. With these words of caution, we close the matter.” 13. In R.Venugopala Naidu v. Venkatarayulu Naidu Charities,A.I.R. 1990 S.C. 444. also, the Supreme Court following the above decision, i.e., C.Rami Reddy v. Government of Andhra Pradesh, A.I.R. 1986 S.C. 1158 directed the properties in question to be sold by public auction by giving wide publicity regarding the date, time and place of public auction and directed that a reserve price should also be fixed after ascertaining the market value. 14. In this case, in the petition, there is reference to one Sundari and Sulochana to purchase the suit property. Thereafter suddenly, one Unnikrishnan and Rajesh appear to have offered to purchase the property pending the trust O.P. These two persons were also impleaded in the revision by order dated 19.10.2000. Thereafter admittedly the properties had again passed hands to third parties. Thereafter suddenly, one Unnikrishnan and Rajesh appear to have offered to purchase the property pending the trust O.P. These two persons were also impleaded in the revision by order dated 19.10.2000. Thereafter admittedly the properties had again passed hands to third parties. Since the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in matters where the trust properties are sold have not been followed in the instant case, I have no hesitation in setting aside the order of the Court below. The matter is remanded to the file of the Principal District Court, Tiruchirappalli. The learned District Judge shall again consider whether the sale is in the interest of the trust after hearing the parties and if the District Judge is satisfied that permission should be granted, he shall fix the reserve price after ascertaining the market value so that the interest of the trust is safeguarded and thereafter, conduct the sale by public auction by giving wide publicity regarding the date, time and place. The 3rd and 4th respondents who claim to have purchased the property shall be entitled to refund of the price paid by them with 10% interest from the date of payment of the amount till the date of auction of the property. The C.R.P. is allowed with costs of Rs.3,000 to be paid by the first respondent. Connected C.M.Ps. are closed.