Jwala Prasad, J.The plaintiffs and the defendants are the distant relations of Musammat Shashimani Ohaudhurain, widow of Babu Bachcha Ohaudhuri, who died in the year 1865, leaving two widows, Shashimani Ohaudhurain and Subastu Ohaudhurain. On 5th June, 1864, he executed a deed of gift transferring all his properties both moveable and Immovable to his two wives making them absolute owners thereof, In his lifetime he has built a temple in Mauza Subhankarpur an installed therein the deity known as Sihakur Murli Manoharji. In the deed of gift referred to above he directed his widows to perform worship and puja of the said deity and to carry on ancestral sadabarat at the deorhi of the dwelling house of the family and also to meet other expenses of charity, etc. One of the widows 8ubastu Ohaudhurain died in Chait 1285 Fasli (corresponding to 1877) leaving a Will whereby she bequeathed her share and interest in the properties of her husband absolutely to the other widow Musammat Shashimani Ohaudhurain. Thue Mtisammai Shashimani Ohaudhurain became the sole and absolute owner of the whole of her husbands estate. On 7th November, 1910 she executed a deed of trust or samarpannama (Ex. 1). In this deed she provided for the appointment of shebait and trustee of the debutter properties constituting herself to be the trustee and she during her lifetime, and after her death she declared Babu Satdeo Jha to be the trustee and shebait and after his death the eldest of his male issues who may be alive at the time ; and in case the said Babu failed to have any male issue or for some reason or ether he could not be trustee or shebait, then Babu Sahdeo Jha and his male issue were nominated to be the shebait and trustee and if he also could not be appointed shebait and trustee or failed to have any male issue, then the Gavernment was declared competent to appoint a Maithil Brahman capable and trustworthy end plicated to be the shebait and trustee. On the 23rd of February, 1922, for the reasons set forth therein she executed another deed modifying the scheme for the appointment of shebait, and appointed Gulab Jha, Raghunath Misra, Deokinandan Ojba, Babu Ram lagan Kuar and Babu Qokhul Prasad Singh as trustees and shebaits after her, with Gulab Jha as manager and mukhtearam. Again "on the 14th November, 1123, another deed was executed jointly by Musammat Shashimani Ohaudhurain and Batdeo Jha, Gulab Jha, Raghunath Misra, Deokinandan Ojha, Babu Ramlagan Kuar and Babu Gokhul Prasad Singh; that is, this document was executed by the lady and the shebaits, named in the two previous documents. By this document Satdeo Jha, Gulab Jha and Raghunath Misra, were appointed shebaits.

2. In February, 1924, the lady died and the aforesaid three persons Satdeo Jha, Gulab Jha and Raghunath Misra became shebaits. On the 25th January, 1926, Satdeo Jha and Kesho Jha filed a petition before the District Judge of Darbhanga under the Charitable and Religious Trusts Act (XIV of 1920), alleging that the dedicated properties of which the plaintiffs are the shebaits are "public, charitable and religious endowments" and asking, the Court to call for an account from the plaintiffs as to their dealings with the properties in question. Notice was served upon the plaintiffs by the District, Judge. u/s 5 of the they took time to file a suit for a declaration that the properties in dispute are not debutter properties dedicated for public purposes of charitable and religious nature, but that they were private trusts outside the scope of the. Hence the present suit was instituted in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Muzafferpur on the 14th September, 1922, for a declaration as aforesaid that the properties in dispute are private trust properties and are not the public religious and charitable trust properties, it was also alleged in the plaint that the defendants are not relations of the deceased and are not competent to take action under Act XIV of 1920.

3. The defendants resisted the plaintiffs claim on various grounds, and raised several issues. They have all been decided against them and do not arise in this appeal. The only issue that arises in the appeal is issue No. 5: "Whether the mmarpan properties are private turst as alleged by the plaintiffe" The learned Subordinate Judge answered this issue in affirmative and gave the declaration asked for in favour of the plaintiffs. The defendants aggrieved by the decision of the Subordinate Judge have come up to this Court in appeal.

4. It is conceded that the question as to whether the properties in dispute were the private trust properties or were dedicated for public, religious and charitable purposes depends principally upon the construction of the deed of trust, dated the 7th November, 1910 (Ex. 1) as modified by the subsequent deeds of 1922 and 1923 which by consent of parties have been admitted in evidence in this Court and marked Exs. A and A-1 respectively printed in a supplementary paper-book under the Courts order, dated 9th January, 1929. It it is not disputed that Musammat Shashimani Ohaudhurain by reason of the deeds of gifts executed by her husband in 1864 and by her co-widow Subastu Ohaudhurain in 1877, became the sole and absolute proprietress of all the properties of her husband as well as of those which she acquired during her lifetime including the properties in dispute. Her title to the properties was disputed in a litigation launched by the agnates of her husband against her, but it was ultimately set at rest by the decision of their Lordships of the Judicial Committee. The question of her right to deal with the properties in any way she pleased no longer arises in the,present litigation.

5. The plaintiffs are distantly related to her, Sahdeo Jha being the descendant of her sister. The defendants Jadav Jha and Keshav Jha are also distantly related to her husband. Therefore she had no near relation of her or of her husband and as her age advanced she became anxious to settle her properties in the best way conducive to her interest and of those whom she loved and liked. After reciting her own title to the properties, she. sets out her intentions in executing the deed of trust and the purposes of the trust. She says:

Now as I, the declarant, have became old and aged, I intend to devote the remainder of my life to religious works and in pilgrimages, and since it is obligatory on me the declarant to make some arrangement for the support and maintenance of my relatives who have been always living with me the declarant, and it is also incumbent on me to make some arrangement for the puja ragbhog samaiya, utsav, and other expenses and for the repairs of the mandair (temple) and of the houses dedicated to Sri Murli Manohar Thakurji installed by the husband of me, the declarant, at Subhankarpur, and it is also necessary for me to make some arrangement for the upkeep of the sadabarat coming down from the time of ancestors at deorhikhana of the dwelling house, as also for other religious andeharitableexpenses, and it is also necessary to confirm by deeds, the grants which I, the declarant, had made verbally to Pandas and Brahmans, of which they have been, from the very beginning, in possession and it is also necessary for me to make arrangements for my maintenance and religious expenses and also for (expenses) of my sradh ceremony, after my death, I, of my own free-will and accord, in sound state of body and mind without coercion and pressure by anybody execute this deed in the following terms.

6. She gives effect to her intentions by making provision for the objects enumerated above.

7. In Clause 1 she makes provision by gifts and transfers of the properties detailed in Sch. IV to Pandas and Brahmans, etc.

8. In Clause 2, Sub-clause (a) and (b) she makes provision for her relations Sahdeo Jha, Satdeo Jha and Baghunath Misra the plaintiffs and Jadav Jha and Keshav Jha the defendants.

9. In Clause 3 she provides for her own maintenance and for the puja, etc., of the deity Sri Murli Manohar Thakurji and for daily sadabarat at the deorhi and at the. Maithil Brahman Sabha held annually at Subbankarpur, the place of her residence, and for the marriages of Brahman children through the said sabha and also for the education of children according to the directions of the Maithil Conference.

10. For the carrying out of these schemes of worship, ragbhog of the deity, the religious and charitable purposes she dedicates her properties and makes arrangement for the appointment of trustee or shebait for the management of the properties and for carrying out the scheme propounded by her. The lady circumstanced as she was, being destitute of any near heir who could succeed to the large properties she possessed, was naturally inclined to make provision for gifts to her relations, for her own maintenance, for the purpose of her own religious duties, for the celebration of her sradh and the annual tradh of her husband, of herself and her co-widow and for the perpetuation of her name and that of her husband by adopting a son to herself giving to him the properties left after the gifts mentioned in Clause 1 to 3. She was not unmindful of her duties towards the public. Naturally she provided for public alms or food called sadabarat to be distributed daily to the poor or to travellers (the meaning of sadabarat as given in Fallons Dictionary) both at the deorhi as well as at the Maithil Brahman Sabha for contribution towards the marriages of Brahman children, which is also a laudable act of public charity amongst the Hindus, as well as the cost of education of children through the Secretary of the Maithil Conference. These are undoubtedly charitable objects. They are gifts to a section of the general public, namely, the poor and the children, and are not ear-maked for a particular person or the children of a particular person so as to make them private charities. They are dedications to the poor as a class entitled to participate in the gift at the deorhi or at the sabha. Similarly those whom the secretary of the Maithil Conference would consider eligible would be entitled to participate in the gift set apart for the purpose of education of boys. The lady herseli has called these in the document as "religious and charitable purposes" (mazhabi danaur pun) and has distinguished them from her own religious expenses and maintenance referred to in the latter part of the preamble of the document quoted above. Now, the charity referred to in the document undoubtedly meant public charity as the words themselves import. In Jones v. Williams (1767) Amb. 651 : 27 E.R. 422 charity has been defined to be a gift for a general public use wide also Goodman v. Saltash Corporation (1883) 7 A.C. 633 : 52 L.J.Q.B. 193 : 48 L.T. 239 : 31 W.R. 293 : 47 J.P. 276 and Commissioners for Special Purposes of the Income Tax v. Pamsel (1891) A.C. 531 : 61 L.J.Q.B. 265. It includes relief of the aged, impotent and poor people: Nash v. Morley (1842) 5 Beav. 177 : 11 L.J. Ch. 336 : 6 Jur. 520 : 49 E.R. 545 : 59 R.R. 456 and In re Gosling (1900) 48 W.R. 300 : 16 T.L.R. 152. A gift to free schools of learning and scholars of Universities is included in the term, although it may impart instruction in a certain religious belief. Based upon the decision in the English cases and in keeping with the connotation of the term, the Charitable Endowments Act (VI of 1890) has in Section 2 given the definition of "charitable purposes" as including the relief of the poor, education, medical relief and the advancement of any other object of general public utility.

11. Act XX of 1863 deals with the management of Religious Endowments Act XIV of 19 0 deals with "trusts created for public purposes of a charitable or religious nature."

12. Under this Act any person having an interest in such a trust may apply to the Court of the District Judge for an order for obtaining particulars as to the nature and object of the trust, the value, condition, management and application of the subject-matter of the trust and of the income belonging thereto and for an account of the trust to be examined and audited. The application by the defendants in this case was made under this Act, and hence the question arises whether the trust created in the present case is for public purposes of a religious and charitable nature. A deed of trust similar to that in the present case was construed in the case of Jugal Kishore v. Lakshmandas 23 B. 659 : 1 B. L.R. 118 to be for public purposes, namely, religious and charitable. There also a Hindu had built a temple in honour of a deity to which were attached a dharamshala and a sadabarat for feeding the travellers and giving alms to the poor. During his lifetime the founder of the trust managed the trust himself, and on his death his son assumed the management; vide also the case of Thackersey Dewraj v. Hurbhum Nursey 8 B. 432, where amongst other things provision was made for payment to poor devotees irrespective of their caste and also for caste purposes, etc. In the case of Puran Atal v. Darshan Das 14 Ind. Cas. 698 : 34 A. 468 : 9 A.L.J. 709 where provision was made for maintaining fakirs of a particular sect and the propagation of the tenets of that sect, it was held that the trust was for public purposes of a charitable and religious nature.

13. It is said that the endowment to the deity, namely, Sri Murli Manohar Thakurji, was a private trust, inasmuch as the Thakurji was not dedlicated to the public but was installed in a private temple appertaining to the dwelling house of the family. The learned Subordinate Judge has countenanced this contention. His view is based upon the evidence of two witnesses on behalf of the plaintiffs. Witness No. 1 Deokinandan Jha gives the geographical situation of the temple No plan of the temple or of the family dwelling house has been filed in this case. The parties, however, prepared a plan from the evidence of this witness and have given us copies of the same. Admittedly the temple was built and deity was installed by the husband of the lady. The temple is between the zenana house and the outer compound. It has a main gate from the east. It is situated in such a way as to enable the pardanashin ladies to come into it so as to have darshan of the deity and the public to come from the eastern gate without encroaching upon the privacy of the zanana. The two courtyards, namely, the zanana court-yard and the court-yard east of the temple appertaining to the temple seem to be well divided. This was to my mind purposely done in order to afford facility to the inmates of the house as well as to the public to have darshan and worship in the temple. At the gates of the temple there are two rooms and naturally Darbans remain there so as to present the congregation and keep order when the public come into the temple. Admittedly on ceremonial occasions people freely come there. The evidence of the two witnesses does not impress me as proving that the deity iustalled was meant for private worship only. The Sri Murli Manohar Thakurji is not the family deity. The family deity might be a private deity, but the installation of a deity of that character meant necessarily to be open to the public. This is not uncommon in this country. Whatever might have been the character of this dedication during the lifetime of the husband of the lady it undoubtedly was made public religious endowment by the lady, for she dedicated her properties as debutter to the deity with directions to spend the income not only for the ragbhog of the deity but also for general public purposes, and all these have been mentioned collectively in Clause 3 of the deed. The worship of the deity was open to the public. Then there is the sadabarat at the deorhi (a porch; landing place, entrance, ante-chamber) where the poor and the travellers come and receive the alms and food. This is public charity. The endowment for sadabarat or alms has been provided for in the deed for distribution at the Maithil Brahman Sabha and also for the marriage and education of Brahman children through the Secretary of the Maithil Brahman Conference. These are undoubtedly of public character.

14. The endowments in Clause 3 of the deed are for public, religious and charitable purposes. This is also clear from the fact that the lady has propounded a scheme for the administration of the endowments called the debutur endowment and framed rules. The trustee to be appointed is to receive remuneration for discharging his duties. He is directed to spend the income of the endowed properties in the amount and under the heads detailed in cl 3. He has of, course, the discretion to apply the savings under one head for the purpose of another head, and the savings after meeting the expenses specified are directed to be devoted for the purpose of purchasing properties in the name of the Thakurji and such properties are to be considered as a part of the debutter properties. She became the trustee during her lifetime and after her some of her relations mentioned in Sub-clause (a) of Clause 3, and the shebait is directed to perform the duties honestly and is liable to dismissal if found to be dishonest or declared incapable of being a shebait and a trustee. They are declared to be dealt with in their capacity as shebaits in accordance with the law; and undoubtedly, therefore, the lady contemplated that the shebait would be responsible to the public and amenable to the law of the country for due performance of the duties enjoined upon them. They could not have been made so liable had the endowments been of a private character and the trust created were of a private, nature. Indeed suspecting the conduct of the shebaits named in the document of 1910 due to certain acts of distrust and bad faith mentioned in the document of 1922, the lady modified the directions as to the appointment of shebaitt and appointed persons other than those named in the first deed to be the shebaits after her.

15. Again, she propounded another scherro of management with the concurrence of the shebaits mentioned in the documents of 1910 and 1922 that scheme is contained in the document of 1923. Throughout this document she calls the dedicated properties as "wakf estate," a term significant of the nature of the trust, namely, that of a public kind. She has made arrangements for the appointment of arbitrators in case of difference or dispute between the several shebaits and so on.

16. Therefore, in view of the objects set forth in the preamble of the document and the scheme propounded by her for the management of the trust properties mentioned in Clause 3,1 have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that the document of 1910 is of a mixed character. There are private gifts to relations, to friends, to Brahmans and Pandas and to others. There are gifts to the adopted boy. With these we have nothing to do. They are private properties of the donees. But Clause 3, which is distinct from the other clauses and which deals with properties other than those contained in the other provisions of the deed, relates entirely to endowments of public, f religious and charitable character. The learned Judge has, to my mind, failed to appreciate the scope of the endowments made in Clause 3 for public sadabarat at the deorhi and at the Maithil Brahman Sabhas and for marriage and education of the Brahman children.

17. I would, therefore, hold, in disagreement with the a view taken by the Court below, that the trust in this case is of a public nature. It is not a private trust, and it comes well within the purview of the (XIV of 1920). No doubt, as contended by Mr. Manuk in dealing with the shebaits and the management of the trust, the directions of the lady contained in the documents should be taken into consideration.

18. The appeal is, therefore, allowed, the decision of the Court below is set aside and the suit is dismissed with costs throughout.

Wort, J.

19. I agree.