Judgment : F. M. IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, J. The Commissioner of HR & CE Department, Chennai is the applicant. The prayer in the application is to bring the Charities and the Religious Endowments and other schedule mentioned properties which had been directed to be performed in C.S. No. 177 of 1939 be henceforth brought under the purview of the authorities constituted under the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act 1959. 2. The brief facts which are required to be stated are that this Court while dealing with application Nos. 5159 of 2006 and 46 of 2007 in C.S. No. 177 of 1939 concerning the grant of licence in respect of a hundi kept in a Temple called ‘Muneeswarar Temple’ popularly known as ‘Body Guard Muneeswarar Temple’, directed the Administrator General and Official Trustee (AG and OT) to address the applicant herein to send a proposal as to how best the said Muneeswarar Temple and hundi collection therein could be safely preserved and also directed the applicant to give a report. When the AG and OT addressed a letter to the applicant dated, 13.2.2007 in pursuance of such orders passed by this Court on 22.1.2007, the applicant herein filed a report dated 9.3.2007 and thereafter, came forward with the present application in A. No. 5108 of 2007. In the report dated 9.3.2007, as well as in the affidavit filed in support of this application. The applicant would contend that the applicant was not able to exercise control over the Muneeswarar temple as the management of the said Temple was governed by a scheme settled by this Court dated 1.8.1941 in C.S. No. 177 of 1939. In the report dated 9.3.2007, as well as in the affidavit filed in support of this application. The applicant would contend that the applicant was not able to exercise control over the Muneeswarar temple as the management of the said Temple was governed by a scheme settled by this Court dated 1.8.1941 in C.S. No. 177 of 1939. The applicant would contend that the said Muneeswarar Temple is one of the properties mentioned in the schedule ‘A‘ of the scheme and that as described In schedule ‘B‘ of the scheme, certain rites are to be performed in connection with the said temple, that since the said temple along with other properties listed out in schedule ‘A‘ of the scheme were under the control of the AG and OT as per the scheme, that after the advent of HR & CE Act 1959 since the provisions of the said Act would apply to all Hindu Public Religious Institutions and Endowments in the State of Tamil Nadu, all the schedule mentioned properties being Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments, the same are liable to be brought under the control of the applicant. It is on the above basis, the applicant has come forward with the prayer in this application as mentioned above. 3. To this application, the Official Trustee has filed a report contending that at the time when the Scheme Decree was passed on 1.8.1941 in C.S. No. 177 of 1939, HR & CE Act 1959 was not in vogue and that at that point of time, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act 1926 (Madras Act II of 1927) providing for supervisory control over the Hindu Religious Endowments was in force and that this Court considering the salient features of the Institution for performing several charities which includes charities pertaining to Mohammedan and Christian Religious Institutions passed the Scheme Decree providing for their proper administration. According to AG and OT, in the above stated back ground, when the Madras Act II of 1927 and HR & CE Act 1959 are not applicable, the prayer of the applicant cannot be granted. 4. According to AG and OT, in the above stated back ground, when the Madras Act II of 1927 and HR & CE Act 1959 are not applicable, the prayer of the applicant cannot be granted. 4. After referring to various decisions M. Krishnaraju Chetty v. Commissioner of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Board, Nungambakkam, Chenni-34 (1977) 2 MLJ 188 , Meyyappa Velar v. Tamil Nadu Temple Administration Board, Madras and Others Meyyappa Velar v. Tamil Nadu Temple Administration Board, Madras and Others Meyyappa Velar v. Tamil Nadu Temple Administration Board, Madras and Others (1995) 1 MLJ 435 , and T. Lakshmikumara Thathachariar v. Commissioner, HR & CE T. Lakshmikumara Thathachariar v. Commissioner, HR & CE T. Lakshmikumara Thathachariar v. Commissioner, HR & CE AIR 1998 SC 3252 : (1998) 6 SCC 643 : (1999) 1 MLJ 4 and Tharayammal (dead) by Lr. v. Kanakammal AIR 2005 SC 1588 : (2005) 1 SCC 457 , Mr. Srikanth, learned Additional Government Pleader, strenuously contended that ’Body Guard Muneswarar Temple’, being a Hindu Religious Temple, certain charities to be performed from and out of the income of the Temple as stipulated in schedule ‘A‘ and ‘B‘ of the Scheme Decree the whole Institution has to brought within the fold of the applicant Board and that the Scheme Decree can even be modified to suit the said purpose. 5. As against the above submissions, Mr. T.R. Mani, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the AG and OT contended that when the Applicants claim that the 1959 Act is applicable, there is no necessity for the applicant to approach this Court by way of this application as the Scheme Decree itself can be worked out under Sections 63 and 64 of the said Act. 6. Accordingto the learned senior counsel, a detailed reference to the Endowments created by the Laskars would show that the same was not an exclusive Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment but was a composite endowment trust providing for performing various charities of different religious charities. The learned senior counsel would therefore contend that the endowment was plural in character and not an exclusive Hindu Reli-gious and Charitable Endowments. It was, therefore, contended that the present Trust not being a single or sole Hindu Religious Charity, there is no scope for applying the provisions of the HR & CE Act 1959. The learned senior counsel would therefore contend that the endowment was plural in character and not an exclusive Hindu Reli-gious and Charitable Endowments. It was, therefore, contended that the present Trust not being a single or sole Hindu Religious Charity, there is no scope for applying the provisions of the HR & CE Act 1959. Learned senior counsel by making a detailed reference to the various provisions of 1959 Act would point out that if it is a singular institution of a Hindu Temple, there can be no two opinion about the applicability of the said Act to the institution and that if it is a charitable endowment simpliciter, there can be no difficulty for the Authorities to extend the Act to the said Endowment. It is the contention of the learned senior counsel that when this Court was conscious of the provisions of the Madras Act II of 1927 at the time when the Scheme Decree came to be framed in the year 1941; it goes without saying that that by itself was sufficient to show that the present institution consisting of members from different communities and the, institution possessing different kinds of properties not exclusively of Hindu Religious character and the charities to be performed as provided in the Scheme being of secular in nature, the applicant has no right to seek for the coverage of the institution under the provisions of the HR & CE Act, 1959. 7. The learned senior counsel relied upon the judgments in Sri Ramanasraman v. Commr., H. R. & CE Sri Ramanasraman v. Commr., H. R. & CE Sri Ramanasraman v. Commr., H. R. & CE ( supra), Kannan v. All India Sai Samaj (supra) in support of his submissions. 8. Having heard the learned Additional Government Pleader for the applicant as well as the teamed senior counsel for the AG and OT, in order to arrive at a just conclusion, it is necessary to refer to the various provisions contained In the Scheme Decree dated 1.8.1941 passed In C.S. No. 177 of 1939. 9. At the outset, a perusal of the cause title in C.S. No. 177 of 1939 itself discloses that the parties were not exclusively Hindus. The 4th defendant was stated to be one Thiru C. Mariadoss, pensioned Havildar. The 18th defendant was one Thiru. R. Arockiasami, pensioned Naik and the 19th defendant was one Sayyid Karim, pensioned Sepoy. 9. At the outset, a perusal of the cause title in C.S. No. 177 of 1939 itself discloses that the parties were not exclusively Hindus. The 4th defendant was stated to be one Thiru C. Mariadoss, pensioned Havildar. The 18th defendant was one Thiru. R. Arockiasami, pensioned Naik and the 19th defendant was one Sayyid Karim, pensioned Sepoy. 10. The suit was for framing the Scheme of management for the proper administration of the properties and endowments belonging to Madras Ordnance Pensioned Lascars and for removal of certain defendants from the trusteeship of the Trust as well as for the appointment of the new trustees for the administration of the trust. The scheme described the name of the charity as “Madras Ordnance Pensioned Lascars Charities.” 11. The term ’Luscars’ is defined to mean under Clause (2) of the Scheme to include Luscars, Sepoy, Naiks, Tindals, Sirdars, Havildars and Jemedars of the Ordnance Department. The General Body of the Charities is to consist of all pensioned Luscars of the Madras Ordnance Department as well as all pensioned Luscars of the Ordnance Department of other provinces in India who are natives of the Madras Presidency and who reside in Madras or its suburbs. As per clause (4) the properties mentioned in Schedule ‘A‘ belonging to the charities were vested and to be managed by the Official Trustee of Madras who was appointed as the TRUSTEE of the charities. The Charities as set out in schedule ‘B‘ were to be managed and conducted by a committee of 5 members elected by the General Body of pensioned Luscars from among themselves. The disqualification prescribed under Clause (7) for holding the office of member of the Committee of any pensioned Luscars does not in any way disentitle any pensioned Luscars belonging to communities other than a Hindu to hold the office of the member of the committee. Clause 13(l) (c), prescribes the manner in which the amounts to be allotted for each of the charities mentioned in schedule ‘B‘ for the ensuing year. Under Clause (17), the trustee should handover to the Committee of Management such sum as decided for the performance of each charities mentioned in schedule ‘B‘ for carrying out such charitable exercise. The first Committee of Management under the scheme were mentioned in Clause (20) of the scheme, which was as under: 1. Krishnaswami Pillai 2. Krishnavelu 3. R. Ponnuswami 4. The first Committee of Management under the scheme were mentioned in Clause (20) of the scheme, which was as under: 1. Krishnaswami Pillai 2. Krishnavelu 3. R. Ponnuswami 4. Mariadoss 5. Scheikh Fareed 12. Under Clause (21) liberty was reserved to the Official Trustee and the parties to the suit to apply to this Court for direction whenever any difficulty arises in carrying put the provisions of the scheme. 13. Out of the six properties mentioned in schedule ‘A‘, item No. 2, Flagstaff with platform and land below situated in Mannarsami Koil Street, Royapuram, together with a passage way leading to it from Mannarsami Koil Street was dedicated to Nagore Mira Sahib. The extent of the said property is stated to be 609 sq.ft. more or less. 14. The 6th item of the property is one with which the applicant is concerned viz., Muneeswaran Temple on the ground situated on the margin of the Body Guards Road, Island Grounds measuring about 64 sq.ft. with hundi box maintained at the premises. In the list of charities to be performed as described in schedule ‘B‘, item No. 2, relates to the Feeding of fakirs, giving pathia money to the fakirs on Qadirvalli Urs day and lighting the flagstaff. Under item No. 5, the charity to be performed is conduct of pooja at the Muneeswaran Temple and water pandal charity during Good-Friday at or about the same place. 15. When the above referred to details contained in the Scheme Decree are analysed, there can be no difficulty in understanding the purpose of the trust being out and out secular in character. 16. In the first place, the members of the General Body is not restricted to Hindu community alone. On the other hand, an over all view of the provisions disclose specific participation in the management committee by at least one member from each of the Christian and Muslim Community who are pensioned Luscars. Whatever income that is derived from the properties mentioned in schedule ‘A‘ were to be pooled in a hotch pot to be vested with the Official Trustee and based on his decision in allocating the amount by way of charity, the same is to be handed over to the management committee for being spent In furtherence of the charitable purposes specified in schedule ‘B‘. Schedule ‘B‘ among other things, specifically provides for the use of the amount set up for charitable purposes like feeding of the fakirs and giving pathia money to the fakirs on Qadirvalli Urs day apart from spending such some for laying of the flagstaff. The-said performance of the charity has nothing to do with either Hindu religion or the Poojas to be performed in the Muneewaran Temple. On the other hand, hundi collection from Muneeswaran Temple kept in a hotch-pot under the control of the Official Trustee is also spent apart from other Hindu charitable purposes towards charities to be performed in the form of feeding the needy muslim persons called fakirs and also by erecting a water pandal on Good-Friday, which is out and out a festival of the Christian community. One other relevant factor to be noted is that the pensioned Luscars who formed the trust by the acquisition of certain properties consciously provided for performance of charities for different religious sects viz., Hindu, Muslim and Christians and thereby specifically intended to maintain its secular character by all means. 17. With the above factual back ground, about the specific intendment of the charitable trust, when the provisions contained in HR & CE Act, 1959 are examined, the preamble of the Act itself states that it is an Act to amend and consolidate the law relating to the administration and governance of Hindu Religious and Charitable Institutions and Endowments In the State. Section 1(3) of the Act specifically states that the Act applies to all Hindu Public Religious Institutions and Endowments. Explanation to sub-section 1(3) makes it clear that Hindu Public Religious Institutions and Endowments do not include Jain Institutions and Endowments. However, under Section 2 power is vested with the Government to extend the provisions of the Act to Jain Public Religious Institutions and Endowments and none others. Under Section 3 of the Act, the applicability of the Act can be extended to Hindu or Jain Public Charitable Endowments in the interest of administration if the same is mismanaged. Under Section 5(e), there is a specific exclusion of Section 92 and 93 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 (CPC) for Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments. Under Section 3 of the Act, the applicability of the Act can be extended to Hindu or Jain Public Charitable Endowments in the interest of administration if the same is mismanaged. Under Section 5(e), there is a specific exclusion of Section 92 and 93 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 (CPC) for Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments. Under Section 6(5), ’Charitable Endowment’ has been defined, which specifically states that properties given which are intended for the benefit of or used as of right by, the Hindu or the Jain Community or any Section thereof, for support or maintenance of objects of utility to the said community or Section, such as rest houses, choultries, etc.,. Section 6(16), (17), (18), (19), (20) and (22), defines the terms ’Religious Charity’, ’Religious Endowments’ or ’Endowments’ ’Religious Institutions’ ’Specific Endowments’, ’Temple’ and “Trustee.” 18. Having regard to the specific definition, defining the religious charity, religious endowment and religious institutions which are out and out connected and associated with the religious practices of Hindu community alone, there is no scope for the Act to have any application in respect of any institution, which is intended to perform apart from religious and charitable activities of Hindu Religions also of other religions viz., Mohammedan and Christian. Under Sections 63, power has been vested, with the authorities named therein to decide the disputes and matters which are out and out relatable to the religious Institution as stipulated under Section 1(3) read along with various definition clause under Section 6 of the Act. 19. Similarly, the power vested with the authority concerned under Section 64 of the Act is also specifically centered around such Institutions which are defined as such under Section 1(3) read along with Section 6(16) to (20) of the Act. 20. In the above stated factual and legal background, the core question to be considered is whether the Madras Ordnance Pensioned Lascars‘ Charity hereinafter referred to as the ’Charity’ as an ‘Institution‘ can be categorised as a Hindu Religious Institution or a Hindu Charitable Trust in order to hold that the same would be governed by the provisions of the HR & CE Act. 21. As stated earlier, the detailed analysis of the various clauses mentioned in the Scheme Decree goes to show that the charity formed by the Pensioned Lascars of Madras Ordnance was not exclusively belonging to the Hindu Community alone. 22. 21. As stated earlier, the detailed analysis of the various clauses mentioned in the Scheme Decree goes to show that the charity formed by the Pensioned Lascars of Madras Ordnance was not exclusively belonging to the Hindu Community alone. 22. On the other hand, the constitution of the first committee of the management itself discloses that it consisted of members belonging to other communities as well viz., Muslim and Christian. Apparently, the constitution seemed to have been so made inasmuch as the general body of the members of the ’charities’ consisted of not only Hindus but also pensioners belonging to other communities. The further fact that item No. 2 of Schedule ’A’ is a flagstaff with the platform and land below dedicated to Nagore Mira Sahib only strengthens the fact that the charity was secular in character and was not exclusively confined to Hindu Religious practises alone. That apart, the specific charity to be performed by way of feeding of fakirs and giving away of pathia money to the fakirs on Qadirvalli Urs day and lighting of the flagstaff are all meant to show that the charity was formed not with a view to restrict it to Hindu Charitable purposes alone but for the performance of charities of other religious groups. 23. Similarly, the charitable disposition of erection of water pandal on Good Friday at Body Guard Road as stipulated in item No. 5 of schedule ’B’ only goes to show that such charities were not intended exclusively for Hindu communities but in respect of people belonging to Christian as well as Muslim communities. 24. The specific stipulations contained in Clause 17 of the Scheme viz., that such charities mentioned in schedule ‘B‘ are to be carried out from and out of the net income reinforces the above position. Similarly, the stipulation contained in Clause 13 that the amounts of money received from the trustee for the performance of various charities set out in Schedule ‘B‘ in the previous year should be accounted for by the committee of management are all factors which strengthen the conclusion that the charities is a composite institution established for the purpose of performing charities in respect of the deserving persons belonging to different communities viz., Hindu, Christian and Muslims. Therefore; the purport and intent of the charity for the above avowed object being so very explicit. Therefore; the purport and intent of the charity for the above avowed object being so very explicit. It can be safely concluded that the charity is a composite one meant for the benefit of people belonging to all the communities viz., Hindus, Christians and Muslims. If once the said conclusion is inescapable one cannot still contend that it is an exclusive Hindu Religious Institution or a Hindu Charitable Endowment. Once such a conclusion can thus be safely arrived at, the question of application of HR & CE Act is out of question. 25. Therefore, I find force in the contention of the learned senior counsel appearing for the trustee In stating that the Trust is one composite trust holding several properties and the allocation of the funds of trust from the hotch-pot goes to several kinds of charities to be performed as provided for under the Scheme. In other words, charity is one composite endowment trust for the performance of different charities which are secular in character and not confined to Hindu Religious alone. Further, under the Scheme Decree, the Court only regularised the plural nature of charities. Therefore, it can be safely held that the charity is not an exclusive Hindu charity in order to apply the Act of 1959. It is not as if the applicant/the Commissioner of HR & CE is not aware of the nature of charities. The report of the Commissioner disclose that the Commissioner was conscious and aware of the various provisions contained in the scheme which was formed by the pensioned Lascars of Madras Ordnance. 26. When a reading of the Scheme Decree as a whole clearly reveals the composite nature of the charity consisting of both secular and religious, it will be futile on the part of the Commissioner to claim for the extension of the provisions of the HR & CE Act on the footing that the Body Guard Muneeswar Temple is a Hindu temple and on that basis, the entirety of the institution irrespective of the fact that it is of secular in nature, it should be brought under the purview of the HR & CE Act. If the claim is to be accepted, it will be incongruous to visualise the situation where the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Board which is meant to regulate and administer Hindu Religious Institutions may have to indulge in performance of charities of other religions viz., Mohammedan and Christian. It is not as if that the Court which granted the Decree on 1.8.1941 was not aware of this position. At that point of time. Act II of 1927 relating to Hindu Religious and Endowments was very much, in force, which was almost in pari materia when the provisions contained in the present HR & CE Act 1959 but yet, the Court, thought it fit to frame the Scheme Decree on noticing that the present Institution viz. ‘The Charity‘ was not coverable under the provisions of Act II of 1927. 27. In the above stated background, the decisions relied or by the learned counsel for the applicant have to be examined. Heavy reliance was placed upon by the Additional Government Pleader on the decision Tharayammal (dead) by Lr. v. Kanakammal and Others Tharayammal (dead) by Lr. v. Kanakammal and Others Tharayammal (dead) by Lr. v. Kanakammal and Others AIR 2005 SC 1588 : (2005) 1 SCC 457 wherein the Hon‘ble Supreme Court dealing with a Dharma Chatram, which was noted as a charitable endowment held that the same cannot be brought within the term ’Trust’ in the strict legal sense and consequently, it should be brought within the purview of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act and not vested with the AG and OT under the provisions of the Administrator-General Act 45 of 1963 and the Official Trustee Act 2 of 1913. While holding so, the Hon‘ble Supreme Court took note of the following facts: (a) The person who dedicated the property as Dharma Chatram to the general public as a resting place and the witness to the dedication was the Lord Thyagaraja Himself. (b) The property described as ’Dharma Chatram’ was covered by the definition of the words ’Charitable Endowments’ as defined under Section 6 of the HR & CE Act 1959. (c) The contents of the stone inscription engraved on the property described the property as a Dharma Chatram, which any Hindu, right from vedic period are known as resting place for the use of travellers. (c) The contents of the stone inscription engraved on the property described the property as a Dharma Chatram, which any Hindu, right from vedic period are known as resting place for the use of travellers. Going by the contents of the stone inscription of the property viz., Dharma Chatram it was clearly made known that the property was a resting place for the travellers and pilgrims visiting the Thyagaraja Temple, a Hindu Religious Institution. (d) The said Dharma Chatram being covered by the definition of ‘Charitable Endowments‘ and ‘Religious Endowments‘ as defined under Section 6(5) and 6(17) of the HR & CE Act 1959, by virtue of Section 3 of the said Act, the State Government was empowered to extend the provisions of the Act to such an institution. 28. In the light of the above factors, the Hon‘ble Supreme Court, modified the orders of the High Court by directing the Commissioner of HR & CE Board to take control of the said institution instead of the AG and OT as directed by the High Court. Having regard to the distinctive features of the institution viz., Dharma Chatram which normally falls under the definition of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments as distinguished from mere trust not falling within any of the definition clauses of the HR & CE Act 1959, there is no scope to apply the said decision to the facts of this case. 29. In the case on hand as has been explained in detail in the earlier paragraphs, the present Charity viz., the Madras Ordnance Pensioned Luscars Charity does not fit into any of the definition clauses of Section 6(16), (17), (18), (19), (20) and (22) of the HR & CE Act and therefore, the order of this Court dated 1.8.1941 in entrusting the management of the charities with the AG and OT cannot be faulted. 30. As far as the decision M. Krishnaraju Chetty v. Commissioner of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Board, Madras - 34 M. Krishnaraju Chetty v. Commissioner of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Board, Madras - 34 M. Krishnaraju Chetty v. Commissioner of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Board, Madras - 34 (1977) 2 MLJ 188 relied upon by the learned Addl. Government Pleader for the applicant, that was a case where the institution was a temple known as Sri Payandi Amman Temple, Nadukuppam, Lloyds Road, Madras. Government Pleader for the applicant, that was a case where the institution was a temple known as Sri Payandi Amman Temple, Nadukuppam, Lloyds Road, Madras. For the said Temple, a scheme was framed under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure by this Court in C.S.No. 42 of 1923 dated 26.3.1926. 31. After the advent of the HR & CE Act, the Division Bench of this Court took the view that even in respect of the scheme framed by this Court prior to the passing of the 1959 Act, the appropriate remedy for the parties concerned would be to approach the statutory authorities nominated for that purpose under the provisions of the 1959 Act. Since the institution in the said case was also indisputably a Hindu Temple, the application of the HR & CE Act 1959 was not in dispute. 32. The only question to be considered was after the advent of the HR & CE Act 1959 whether in respect of any thing to be done under the Scheme Decree framed under Section 92 of the Civil Procedure Code by this Court, the party concerned should either approach the authorities constituted under HR & CE Act 1959 or approach this Court under the Scheme Decree itself to seek for appropriate orders. The said decision, therefore, does not apply to the facts of this case. 33. In the decision in Meyyappa Velar v. Tamil Nadu Temple Administration Board, Madras and Others Meyyappa Velar v. Tamil Nadu Temple Administration Board, Madras and Others Meyyappa Velar v. Tamil Nadu Temple Administration Board, Madras and Others (1995) 1 MLJ 435 , the learned single Judge of this Court was concerned with the question as to whether in respect of a Scheme Decree framed by the Trial Court under Section 92 of the C.P.C. and modified by this Court in the first Appeal by order dated 11.11.1930 long prior to the advent of HR & CE Act 1959 the provisions contained in the Scheme Decree that are repugnant to the provisions of the 1959 Act will be null and void. At the outset, it will have to be stated that the said decision was concerned with an institution called ’Vettudaiyar Kalliamman Temple’ at Ariyakuruchi. Indisputably, the said institution was a Hindu Religious Institution and as such the applicability of the HR & CE Act 1959 was axiomatic. At the outset, it will have to be stated that the said decision was concerned with an institution called ’Vettudaiyar Kalliamman Temple’ at Ariyakuruchi. Indisputably, the said institution was a Hindu Religious Institution and as such the applicability of the HR & CE Act 1959 was axiomatic. In view of the said position, nothing stated in the said decision will have any application to the facts of this case. ” 34. In the decision in T. Lakshmikumara Thathachariar v. Commissioner H. R and C. E. and Others T. Lakshmikumara Thathachariar v. Commissioner H. R and C. E. and Others T. Lakshmikumara Thathachariar v. Commissioner H. R and C. E. and Others AIR 1998 SC 3252 : (1998) 6 SCC 643 : (1999) 1 MLJ 4, the question was whether a scheme settled by the High Court of Madras in the year 1941 under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure can be modified by the Commissioner under Section 64(5) of the HR & CE Act 1959. Here the Institution was known as Devarajaswamy Temple at Kancheepuram and the Scheme-related to the trusteeship of the said Temple. The Hon‘ble Supreme Court held that by virtue of Section 64(5)(a) read along with Section 118 (2)(a) of the 1959 Act, any modification can be made to Section 64 (5)(a) of the 1959 Act by the authority constituted under the said Act. Having regard to the indisputable position about the institution which was a Hind Religious Institution, whatever stated in the said decision can have no application to the facts of this case. 35. As against the above, when the authorities cited on behalf of the AG and OT are examined, in the decision Sri Ramanasramam v. Commissioner, HR & CE (1960) 2 MLJ 121 , the question arose as to whether the component part of Sri Ramanasramam, by name Sri Mathrubootheswarar Swami institution registered under the Societies‘ Registration Act is a Temple as contemplated under Section 6(20) of the HR & CE Act 1959. A Division Bench of this Court while considering the evidence in that case, noted that the institution was a composite institution and that it was only in accordance with Sri Ramana Maharishis universal outlook he made his Asramam open to devotees of all religions. A Division Bench of this Court while considering the evidence in that case, noted that the institution was a composite institution and that it was only in accordance with Sri Ramana Maharishis universal outlook he made his Asramam open to devotees of all religions. It was also noted that the contributions came largely from Non-Hindus and that no exclusively Hindu shrine would be an appendage of a cosmopolitan Ashram. It would have been inconsistent with Sri Ramana Maharishis teachings and life. The Division Bench also noted that the oral evidence was let in through persons of other religions, who were consistently paying homage at the shrine. It was, therefore, held that it was not a place exclusively dedicated to the Hindus. While summing up, it was stated that Sri Mathru- boothesswara Swami Temple is only a Samadhi and not a Temple as established by the facts of the case and that it was admittedly, the Samadhi of a Hindu Brahmin widow viz., the mother of Sri Ramana Maharishi. Further, it was held that the Samadhi described as Mathrubootheswara Swami is adjunct to the Asramam and it was not the core around which the Asramam grew. 36. The Division Bench also held that the institution was a composite one and was not exclusively dedicated to the Hindus. It was also held that “The installations of a Sivalinga on the graves of religious-minded persons are not by themselves intended as dedications for worship of the Universal God Siva as He is described. They are not constructions of temples to God but are resting places of a Soul which by its own goodness, the mercy of God and the pious wishes of relatives and friends interested in its attainment of Heaven reach sayujyam. It means no more that this ’Here lies the remains of one whose life has united with the lord.’ In fact one has only to travel along the highway from Madras to Conjeevaram to see the innumerable saliyar tank with a Sivalinga placed therein reverently tended with flowers, lamps etc., on either side of the road. Similarly on the road side of the Nadavanams of Nadars around Virudhuhagar. In the case of Vaishnavites, more often than not, a Thulasi plant is nurtured over the grave.” 37. Similarly on the road side of the Nadavanams of Nadars around Virudhuhagar. In the case of Vaishnavites, more often than not, a Thulasi plant is nurtured over the grave.” 37. The above said principles which were applied in the case of Sri Ramanasramam, known as Sri Mathrubootheswara Swami Temple, will apply in all four to the facts of this case, which as found earlier was a composite institution formed by Pensioned Lascars following different religions and not exclusively Hindu faith alone. 38. In the decision in All India Sai Samaj v. Deputy Commissioner, HR & CE (1967) 2 MLJ 618 , it was held that the Sai Mandir is a place of worship constructed by the All India Samaj, and is not an exclusive Hindu Temple and therefore, would not come within the purview of the HR & CE Act 1959. While considering the objects of the association, which is a prorogation of faith in God with special reference to Sai Baba of Shirdi and his life teachings and mission. It was noted that the executive committee on the date of its registration consisted of a muslim member. Apart from that, the membership of the Samaj included several Hindus, Christians, Parsis and Muslims who are devotees of Sai Baba. It was further noted that the Samaj had two of its Vice Presidents who were muslims for a number of years. Admittedly, the membership of the Samaj was open for charities irrespective of their religion. In addition to Mandir buildings, dispensary, reading room, laboratory, Book Depot and Printing Press for the Samaj were also constructed. Noting the above factors, it was held that mere fact that the worship in the Mandir is conducted according to Hindu rites by Brahmin priests itself would not lead to the conclusion that it is a Hindu Religious Institution in order to bring the Institution under the provisions of the HR & CE Act 1959. Applying the above ratio and the principles set out in the said judgment to the facts of this case. It can be safely held that the present charities is a composite one consisting of several acts of charities to be performed not exclusively in relation to Hindu Religion alone but also of Muslims and Christians. Applying the above ratio and the principles set out in the said judgment to the facts of this case. It can be safely held that the present charities is a composite one consisting of several acts of charities to be performed not exclusively in relation to Hindu Religion alone but also of Muslims and Christians. The charities being a composite one, cannot be called as a Hindu Religious or Charitable Endowments in order to bring the same under the provisions of the HR & CE Act 1959. 39. The decision of the learned single Judge All India Sal Samaj v. Deputy Commissioner, HR & CE All India Sal Samaj v. Deputy Commissioner, HR & CE All India Sal Samaj v. Deputy Commissioner, HR & CE ( supra), was affirmed by the Division Bench in the decision Kannan v. All India Sai Samaj (1974) 1 MLJ 174 . 40. On a consideration of the provisions of the Act and the various above decisions, the following principles emerge: a. In order to apply and extend the provisions of the HR d CE Act, 1959, the institution must be on exclusive Hindu Religious Institution or a Hindu Charitable Endowment/Institution. The application of the provisions of the Act can be extended to Jain Public Religious Institutions and Endowment by a Special Notification issued by the Government in exercise of Powers under Section 2. b. Similarly, such extension can be made under Section 3 in respect of Hindu Jain Public Charitable Endowment, if the same is being mismanaged after holding necessary enquiry. c. The non-application of Section 92 and 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure as provided under Section 5 can be only in respect of exclusively Hindu Religious Institutions and Hindu Charitable Endowments. d. Having regard to the nature of definition of the expressions viz., “Charitable Endowment, Math, Religious Charity, Religious Endowment or Endowment, Religious Institution, Specific Endowment, Temple and Trustee as defined under Section 6 (5) (13) (16) (17) (18) (19) (20) and (22) of the Act, it is reinforced that the applicability of the Act is out and out only to such Institutions which come within the four corners of the above referred to definitions and not otherwise. e. The stipulation contained in Sections 24 and 25 of the Act also makes it abundantly clear that any person other than a Hindu can have no right to involve himself either by way of participation in the programmes of the Institution such as poojas, festivals etc. and also as its trustee. f. Even the exercise of powers vested with the authorities as prescribed under Sections 63 and 64 of the Act will come into play only if the institution is an Hindu Religious Institution or Hindu Charitable Endowment/Institution and not otherwise. g. Where the predominant purport and intent of the creation of the Institution is secular in character and composite in nature providing for different kinds of Charities to be performed inclusive of the management and administration of a temple as part of it, the exclusion of application of Sections 92 and 93 C.P.C. as provided under Section 5 of the Act cannot be applied. 41. When the above principles are applied to the facts of this case, I am convinced that ‘the charities’ cannot be brought under the provisions of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act 1959 and that the Scheme Decree framed in the order dated 1.8.1941 in C.S.No. l77 of 1939 vesting the properties of ’the charities’ for being managed by the Official Trustee of the Madras is perfectly in order and therefore, the application of the Commissioner of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Board seeking for a direction to bring ’the charities’ under the purview of the authorities constituted under the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious Charitable and Endowments Act 1959 cannot be granted. The application fails and the same is dismissed.