JUDGMENT: The question for consideration in the second appeal is whether the appellant is entitled to a declaration that it is a minority institution as per the Tamil Nadu Minority Schools (Recognition and Payment of Grants) Rules, 1977. The respondents insisted on the appellant obtaining a Civil Court’s declaration that it is a minority institution for grant of recognition. 2. The plaintiff’s case is as follows: The plaintiff institution is registered under the Societies Registration Act. As per the bye-laws, the President of the institution is to look after its affairs. As per the provisions of Art.30(1) of the Constitution of India, the plaintiff institution is a minority institution on the basis of language and religion and therefore entitled to all the benefits a minority institution is entitled to. Arya Samaj is a minority religious establishment. The object of Arya Samaj at Tirunelveli is to train Secondary Grade Teachers and to disseminate the Vedas to the general public. The institution has not been formed on the basis of caste or community. It does not believe in that. Its object is to remove the illiteracy and ignorance among the people. The persons trained in the institution are either Arya Samajis or their children. Out of 4 Teachers in the institution, 3 teachers belong to Arya Samaj. In the whole of Tamil Nadu there are about 1000 Arya Samajis. Out of 4 Teachers, one is qualified to be a Sanskrit Teacher. Sanskrit is taught in the school, as also Vedas. The institution conducts examinations in Sanskrit twice a year and gives certificates. The certificates are approved by the Government of India. Arya Samaj was started in Tirunelveli District on 25.12.1983 and it was registered on 1.10.1985. The President of the institution is also the Correspondent. On 1.2.1986 he sent a notice to the second respondent under Tamil Nadu Minority Schools (Registration and Payment of Grants) Rules. This was followed by a letter dated 25.8.1986 requesting the second respondent to accord recognition to the plaintiff institution as a minority institution. The second respondent, after receiving the said communication, sent it back stating that the plaintiff institution has to obtain a declaration from a competent Civil Court. The details required by the Government were all given by the plaintiff institution. Only to obtain a declaration, the present suit came to be filed. 3. The second respondent, after receiving the said communication, sent it back stating that the plaintiff institution has to obtain a declaration from a competent Civil Court. The details required by the Government were all given by the plaintiff institution. Only to obtain a declaration, the present suit came to be filed. 3. The defendants resisted the suit contending inter alia as follows: There is no need for teaching Sanskrit in Teacher Training Institution. Rules also do not provide for that. There is absolutely no reason for starting such an institution. In case, the plaintiff is to be recognised as a minority institution it has to satisfy certain criteria. The plaintiff does not satisfy those requirements. The respondents have rightly rejected the plaintiff’s claim. It is not enough that a civil Court declares a particular institution to be a minority institution. It has to satisfy the other requirements. 4. On the above pleadings, the trial Court framed the necessary issues and on the oral and the documentary evidence, accepted the case of the plaintiff and decreed the suit. However, on appeal by the respondents, the learned principal Subordinate Judge, Tirunelveli, allowed the appeal, set aside the decree of the trial Court and dismissed the suit. 5. It is as against that, the second appeal has been filed. At the time of admission, the following substantial questions of law were framed for decision in the second appeal. "(1) Whether a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act, admittedly being founded by the members belonging to a minority community of Arya Samaj with objects and aims of propagating the ideals of Arya Samaj with its President and teaching staff as belonging to Arya Samaj, is entitled to claim minority status within the meaning of Art.30(1) of the Constitution and the provisions of Tamil Nadu Minority School (Recognition and Payment of Grants) Rules, 1977? (2) Is not the institution which is founded for the promotion of ideals of Arya Samaj admittedly a minority body for propagation of Arya Samaj ideals, Sanskrit and other ideals entitled to claim minority status irrespective of the same having been established in any territory of State in India?" 6. (2) Is not the institution which is founded for the promotion of ideals of Arya Samaj admittedly a minority body for propagation of Arya Samaj ideals, Sanskrit and other ideals entitled to claim minority status irrespective of the same having been established in any territory of State in India?" 6. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted as follows: The appellate Court had wrongly assumed that in view of the fact that the plaintiff institution was not founded by the Arya Samaj of Tirunelveli Unit, it is not entitled to claim minority status totally ignoring the position that even under the Constitution it is enough if the institution is established or administered by religious minority to claim minority status. In the instant case, the founder and the members of the institution are Arya Samajis, the President of the institution is an Arya Samaji, the teaching staff 3 out of 4 are Arya Samajis and the objects and aims as would be evident from Ex.A-1 clearly show that the institution is established for propagating Sanskrit and Arya Samajis ideals. Even though the school in question was directly established by the Tirunelveli Unit of the Arya Samaj, it was registered under the Societies Registration Act by persons who are members of the Tirunelveli Unit of Arya Samaj for propagating the ideals of Arya Samaj and this would suffice to accord minority status. In its interpretation of Exs.A-1 and A-3, the lower appellate Court has committed an error. 7. As per contra, the learned Government Advocate submitted that as per the decisions of the Supreme Court, any institution to claim minority status should prove that it was established and administered by the minority and in the instant case, the same has not been established and according to the learned Government Advocate, none of the documents produced on the side of the plaintiff, would show that it was established and is being administered by a minority. 8. Heard counsel and perused the materials on record. 9. It has been held by the Supreme Court in D.A.V. College, Jullunder, etc. 8. Heard counsel and perused the materials on record. 9. It has been held by the Supreme Court in D.A.V. College, Jullunder, etc. v. The State of Punjab and others, A.I.R. 1971 S.C. 1737 that, "the Arya Samaj by rejecting the manifold absurdities found in Smriti and in tradition and in seeking a basis in the early literature for a purer and more rational faith can be considered to be a religious minority." It has also been accepted by the Supreme Court in the same decision that, "Arya Samajis have a distinct script of their own, namely, Davanagiri. They are therefore entitled to invoke the right guaranteed under Art.28(1) because they are a section of citizens having a distinct script and under Art.30(1) because of their being a religious minority." 10. We have therefore to see whether so far as Tamil Nadu is concerned, the plaintiff institution is a minority institution. It is in evidence that in the plaintiff institution not only Teacher Training is given, but also Sanskrit is taught and the idea being to teach the general public about the ancient culture and to learn about ancient culture, it is necessary to impart a knowledge of Sanskrit. The contention on behalf of the respondents that it is not necessary to teach Sanskrit cannot be a valid ground for rejecting the case of the plaintiff. As per Tamil Nadu Minority Schools (Recognition and Payment of Grants) Rule 2, "minority school" means a private school, a private school of its choice established and administered or administered by any such minority whether based on religion or language as has the right to do so under Clause (1) of Art.30 of the Constitution". "Private School", is defined to mean a pre-primary, primary, middle or high school or any other institution imparting education or training, established and administered or maintained by any such minority whether based on religion or language as has the right to do so under Clause (1) of Art.30 of the constitution". 11. There can, therefore, be no doubt if on the materials produced, it is found that the institution had been established and being administered by a minority, the appellant would be entitled to relief. 12. Ex.A-1 is the school prospectus and Ex.A-2 is the chalan evidencing payment of examination fees by the students of the plaintiff institution. Ex.A-3 is the registration certificate under the Registration of Societies Act. 12. Ex.A-1 is the school prospectus and Ex.A-2 is the chalan evidencing payment of examination fees by the students of the plaintiff institution. Ex.A-3 is the registration certificate under the Registration of Societies Act. According to the learned Subordinate Judge, by this it cannot be spelt out that the institution was started by Arya Samajis. Ex.A-4 is the certificate dated 21.3.1987 issued by the Head Office of Arya Samaj, Delhi. Ex.A-5 is the communication from the Education Department refusing recognition. Ex.A-6 is dated 1.11.1985 showing that the school had been opened on that date. It is clearly mentioned in Ex.A-6 by the President of Tirunelveli Arya Samaj that the institution is run by Sri Bharathi Gurukulam Sanskrit Mission Teachers Training Institute and the reference copy is enclosed which is a minority agency by linguistic. The objectives and bye-laws have been marked as Ex.A-7. This is rejected by the learned Subordinate Judge that it is not mentioned in this document that the plaintiff institution was started by Arya Samajis in a particular date. Exs.A-8 to A-10 are the syllabus and question papers. May be each document by itself will not show that the institution is a minority institution established by the Arya Samajis of Tirunelveli. But the cumulative effect of the documents is that the plaintiff institution is a minority institution established and is being run by the Tirunelveli Arya Samajis. The learned Subordinate Judge has attempted to be too technical in his interpretation of these documents. He has not taken the cumulative effect of the documents into consideration in deciding the matter in issue. P.W.1 has also spoken to the institution having been established by the Arya Samajis of Tirunelveli as also the registration under the Societies Registration Act. In these circumstances, when the lower Appellate Court has not properly appreciated the materials on record and drawn the necessary inference therefrom, it has become necessary to interfere under Sec.100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. There is clear misreading and mis-interpretation of the materials on record. In my view, it has been satisfactorily established that the plaintiff institution is a minority institution established and administered by a minority, viz., Arya Samajis. 13. Consequently, the substantial questions of law are answered in favour of the appellant. The second appeal succeeds. The judgment and the decree of the lower appellate Court are set aside and those of the trial Court restored. 13. Consequently, the substantial questions of law are answered in favour of the appellant. The second appeal succeeds. The judgment and the decree of the lower appellate Court are set aside and those of the trial Court restored. However, there will be no order as to costs.