Summarize the following court judgment. Appeal No. 111 of 1971. (Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Decree dated 30 8 1968 of the Mysore High Court in Regular Appeal No. 165/57) Sachin Chaudhuri and Narayana Nettar	 for the Appellant. K. Sen	 K.N. Bhatt and K.R.D. Karanath	 for the Re spondent through L.Rs. 338SCI/76 892 The Judgment of A.N. Ray	 C.J. and P.N. Shinghal	 J. was delivered by Shinghal	 J.M.H. Beg	 J. gave a separate Opin ion. SHINGHAL	 J. This appeal by special leave arises out of the judgment of the High Court. of Mysore dated August 30	 1968	 upholding the order of District Judge	 South Kanara	 dated November 9	 1956. By that order the District Judge set aside the decision. of the Board of Commissioners for Hindu Religious Endowments	 Madras	 hereinafter referred to as the Board	 that the institution known as Sri Manjuna tha temple at Dharmasthal	 Puttur Taluk	 South Kanaka district	 was a 'temple ' as defined in clause (12) of sec tion 9 of the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act	 1926 (Madras Act II of 1927)	 hereinafter referred to as the Act. The Commissioner under the Madras Hindu Religious and Char itable Endowments Act feels aggrieved because the impugned judgment has the effect of taking the temple out of the control provided by the Act. The respondent in this appeal was the "supplemental" petitioner before the District Judge and was brought on record on the death of Manjayya Heggade who was the original petitioner in the petition under sub section (2) of section 84 of the Act. The controversy relates to the Manjunatha temple	 in Dharmasthal	 which is now the name ' of a village in Belthan gady taluk of South Kanara district of Tamil Nadu. The original name of the village was Mallarmadi. The locality in which the temple is situated was called Kukya Kudume	 but it came to be known as Dharmasthal after the visit of Sri Vadiraja Swamiar of Sode Mutt	 Udipi	 in the 16th century	 to which reference will be made in a while. It is not in dispute that	 even according to the Heggade	 Dharmasthal has a number of institutions including the following main institutions	 1. Nelleyadi Beedu	 2. Chandranatha Basthi	 3. Manjunatha temple	 4. Ammanvaru temple	 and 5. Heggadeship. These institutions have been shown in exhibit A 59 which is said to be a rough sketch of the Dharmasthal. It is also not in dispute before us that "Daivas" were first estab lished in Nolleyadi Beedu	 by an ancestor of Heggade who was a Jain	 and were worshiped there. Heggade began to give charity to persons of all religions	 and the institution became well known and travellers began to visit it in large numbers. It is the common case of the parties that Sri Vadiraja Swamjar of Sode Mutt	 Udipi	 who was a Sanyasi	 happened to pass that way and was invited by Heggade to stay there. The Swamiar however refused to accept food there on the ground that it was "Bhuta Kshetra". Heggade felt very sorry as the great Sanyasi was starving in his house. It is said that Heggade thereupon arranged to instal the idol of Sri Manjunatha in the "garbagriha. " The Swamjar was ap peased and performed the first "pooja" in that temple	 which thereafter came to 893 be known as Dharmasthal. This is said to have happened in the sixteenth century and is	 at any rate	 said to be the origin of the Manjunatha temple in the Dharmasthal campus. The Board started proceedings under section 84(1) of the Act to decide whether Sri Manjunatha temple was a temple as defined in clause (2) of section 9 of the Act. Heggade urged before the Board	 inter alia	 that all the institu tions in Dharmasthal formed a single unit representing a private institution	 that it had been rounded by his ances tors on their own private land	 that there was no dedication to the Hindus and they could not claim any right of worship	 that Dharmasthal was Jain in character	 that it was a charitable but not a religious institution	 that his status was not akin to that of a mere trustee and that "Heggadeship" was intimately and inseparately connected with the Dharmasthal institution and Manjunatha temple. The Board made an enquiry and reached the conclusion that Manjunatha temple was a separate entity and was the most important institution and that it was not the private property of the Heggade. I also held that it was not a Jain institution	 but was a Hindu temple	 and that it was a religious and not merely a charitable institution for its charity was connected with the temple. The Board also held that the public had used the temple freely ever since its foundation. It accordingly decided that Manjunatha was a temple as defined in the Act even though its trusteeship vested in Heggades who were Jains. As has been stated	 an application was made by Manjayya Hegde to the District Judge	 under sub section (2) of sec tion 84 of the Act for setting aside the Board 's decision. It was specifically pleaded in that application that the entire institution known as Dharmasthal was a "composite" institution and that his ancestors always claimed that the Manjunatha Devaru	 its properties and deities belonged to them personally and that its 'patta ' stood in their names from time immemorial. On that basis	 it was pleaded further that as the properties were outside the scope of the enquiry under section 84 of the Act	 the Act "did not apply and the Board had no jurisdiction to hold an enquiry under section 84. " A counter affidavit was flied on behalf of the Board in which it was pleaded that Manjunatha temple of Dharmasthal was "an independent entity being a separate temple	 owning its own property and having separate income. " It was pleaded further that there were properties in the name of the deity of the Manjunatha in Mysore State and other places. The District Judge did not frame any issued but formulated some points for determination including the points whether Manjunatha Devaru was only a part of the institution known as Dharmasthal	 and not a separate insti tution in itself	 and whether the provisions of the Act did not apply to it ? He recorded the evidence and heId that Manjunatha temple was one of the 3 or 4 shrines maintained from the income of the institution known as Dharmasthal	 Heggade was a component part of the institution. the temple stood on the private land of Heggade	 the Manjunatha shrine was a Hindu institution but it was so mixed up and connected with other Jain institutions that it was practically impos sible to separate it	 and that Dharmasthal was a happy blending of charity and religion. The District Judge held further that the Manjunatha shrine was the private 894 temple of the Heggade	 it had not been dedicated to the Hindu public	 and it was not used by the public as of right. The District Judge did not decide whether the shrine of Ammanvaru and other deities was a Jain institution. He accordingly held that though the Manjunatha shrine may be a Hindu shrine	 it was private property of the Heggade and the provisions of the Act were not applicable to it. The Dis trict Judge accordingly set aside the order of the Board dated March 9	 1949. The Commissioner filed an appeal to the High Court against that judgment of the District Judge dated November 9	 1956. One of the main questions presented for determina tion before the High Court was whether "all the institu tions" of Dharmasthal formed a single composite institution. It was not in dispute before the High Court that	 apart from the question of Manjunatha temple being an adjunct to the composite Dharmasthal institution	 the temple was not an institution at all. Even the Heggade did not deny the exist ence of Manjunatha temple as an institution and took the specific plea in his affidavit dated July 22	 1949 that the Manjunatha Deity "is a private institution belonging to the Heggade. " The High Court examined the "crucial question" whether Manjunatha was a temple within the definition of the Act and whether it was a "Religious Endowment" under section 9(11). It held that the Manjunatha temple was an adjunct to the composite institution of Dharmasthal and according to the customs and usages of the institution that temple could not be separated from the rest of the institution	 that Dharmasthal was both a religious and charitable institution	 that Manjunatha was a deity worshipped both by the Hindus and the Jains in accordance .with their respective faiths and that it was neither an exclusively Hindu deity nor an exclusively Jain deity. The High Court referred to the pleadings and the evidence and held that the institution was rounded by a Jain	 its administration remained exclusively Jain since its inception	 and that as Jains also worshipped along with Hindus	 it could not be inferred that there was an implied dedication to the Hindus exclusively. The High Court thus hold that the temple was not a temple as defined in the Act	 and it was therefore not necessary to examine the question whether it was a private temple of the Heggade. In the result	 the High Court took the view that the Act did not apply to the institution and the Board had no jurisdic tion over it. It therefore dismissed the appeal with costs. The Commissioner has obtained special leave	 and this is how the appeal has come up here for consideration. As the controversy in this case relates to the applica bility of the Act to the Manjunatha temple	 it will be convenient to examine its relevant provisions. The preamble of the Act states	 inter alia	 that it is meant to provide for the better administration and gover nance of "certain Hindu religious endowments" described in it. Section 2 makes it clear that the Act applies "to all Hindu public religious endowments". Private religious endowments are therefore outside its scope. Then there is an Explanation to the following effect	 895 "Explanation	 for the purpose of this Act	 Hindu public religious endowments do not include Jain religious endowments. " The effect of the section therefore is to exclude not only private religious endowments	 but also Jain religious endowments and it is around the provisions of section 2 that the controversy in this case has centred. The exclusion of Jain religious endowments has been emphasised by section 3(b) which empowers the Local Government to remove the exclusion and extend the provisions of the Act	 and the Rules framed thereunder	 to Jain religious endowments	 subject to such restrictions and modifications as may be considered proper. As no such extension has been notified	 the Act does not cover Jain religious endowments. It is confined to Hindu religious "endowments" and will not be applicable where there is no such endowment at all. The expression "Religious endowment" or "Endowment" has been defined in clause (ii) of section 9 as follows	 "(11) 'Religious endowment ' or 'Endow ment ' means all property belonging to	 or given or endowed for the support of maths or temples or for the performance of any service or charity connected therewith and includes the premises of maths or temples but does not include gifts of property made as personal gifts or offerings to the head of a math or to the archaka or other employee of a temple. " It follows that "all property" belonging to	 or given or endowed for the support of a temple or for the performance of any service or charity connected with the temple will constitute its endowment	 including the premises of the temple. It would therefore be necessary to examine whether there is evidence to prove any such endowment in respect of Sri Manjunatha temple. In this connection it will be neces sary to examine which property	 if any	 was endowed to the temple	 and by whom	 and which	 if any	 could be said to be the premises of the temple to the exclusion of all other temples ? The expression "Temple" has been defined by clause (12) of section 9 in these terms ' "(12) 'Temple ' means a place	 by whatev er designation known	 used as a place of public worship and dedicated to	 or for the benefit of	 or used as of right by	 the Hindu community	 or any section thereof	 as a place of religious worship. " The definition thus emphasises that only those temples will fall within the purview of the Act which are places of "public religious worship" and are "dedicated" to	 or for the benefit of	 or are used "as of right" by the Hindu community. It may be mentioned in this connection that	 as has been stated	 the District Judge has held that although the Manju natha temple may be a Hindu temple	 it is the private temple Of the Heggade and is not a temple expressly dedicated to Hindus or a temple which could be 896 said to have been used or resorted to by the Hindu public as of right. The High Court has	 on appeal	 held on the other hand	 that Manjunatha is neither an exclusively Hindu deity nor an exclusively Jain deity and that it is not therefore a temple as defined in the Act. It has therefore not examined the other question whether it is a public or a private temple. As regards the property of the temple	 the High Court has held that it is an "adjunct" to the composite institution consisting of Hindu and Jain Gods and Daivas worshipped by Hindus and Jains. Counsel for the parties have argued at length on the questions whether Manjunatha temple is an exclusively Hindu temple and whether it is a place of public religious worship dedicated to or used as of right by the Hindu community as a place of religious worship. There is considerable evidence for deciding these questions	 but even if it were assumed that the answer to these questions should be in the affirma tive	 that would not be decisive	 of the controversy	 for the other question would still remain whether it is an "endowment"? It will be recalled ' that by virtue of section 2	 the Act applies only to Hindu public religious "endow ments. " The definition of "Religious endowment" and "Endowment" in clause (11) of section is common. Accordingly	 the questions which arise for consideration in this connection are whether the temple has property belonging to	 or given or endowed for its support or for the performance of any service or charity connected therewith. It has not been disputed before us	 and is in fact beyond controversy	 that there is considerable movable and immovable property of the Dharmasthal as a whole i.e. the entire complex or campus consisting of Nelleyadi Beedu	 Chandranath Basthi	 Manjuna tha temple	 Ammanvaru temple and the Heggadeship. But the question is whether there is any such property exclusively of the Manjunatha temple so as to constitute a Hindu reli gious endowment for purposes of section 2 of the Act ? It will be recalled that it is not in dispute here that it were the "Daivas" who were first established in Nelleyadi Beedu and were worshipped there by an ancestor of Heggade who was a Jain. The High Court has in fact found that it has been clearly established by the evidence on the record that the institution was rounded by a Jain and that ever since its inception its administration has remained in the hands of a Jain	 namely	 the Heggade. So when Vadiraja Swamjar of Sode Mutt	 Udipi	 came there as mentioned earli er	 there was only worship of Jain "Daivas" and of "no God". This is to be found in the report (exhibit A 108) of T. Narayan Nambiyar in the matter of the Manjunatha temple	 which was taken in evidence and has been relied upon by the High Court. It was at the instance of the Swamiar that the idol of Manjunatha was brought and installed in the "garbagriha" and it was he who performed the first 'pooja '. It was therefore the Swamjar who was responsible for the installa tion of the Manjunatha idol	 which was a 'lingam '	 in a campus where there were shrines of Devas like Nelleyadi Beedu	 the Chandranatha Basthi and several other buildings. It could not therefore be said that the mere installation of the idol of Manjunatha brought into existence any such property as 897 could be said to belong to that deity or given or endowed for the support of its temple or for the performance of any service or charity connected therewith. There is	 on the other hand	 evidence to show that all the buildings and institutions of the Dharmasthal	 which was the composite name of the entire campus or complex consist ing of the buildings mentioned in plan exhibit A 59	 were situ ated in the land belonging to the Heggade	 and of which he held a 'patta '. This is evident from exhibit A 103 which is a certified copy of the statement of Kumara Heggade dated July 31	 1820	 which appears to have been read in evidence with the consent of the parties. To the same effect is the statement of U. Seetharamayya dated October 12	 1954 who was acquainted with Dharmasthal since 1908. As it is	 the Manjunatha temple does not have even a separate "prakaram". The shrine of Ammanvaru is in close proximity of the Manju natha temple and within the same "prakaram". It has not been disputed before us that	 as has been stated by U. Seetharamayya	 P.W. 2	 its important deities are Kalarahu	 Kalarhayi	 Kumaraswami and Kanya Kumari some of which	 at any rate	 are the same as the Jain deities worshipped in Nelleyadi Beedu and Badinade both of which are admittedly Jain institutions. Moreover	 Kanya Kumari in Ammanvaru shrine cannot be said to be Parvati	 the consort of Shiva	 for M. Govinda Psi R.W. 12	 who claims to have studied Hindu and Jain religions and was examined on behalf of the Board	 has stated that Parvati and Kanya Kumari are "not identical". The shrine of Annappa Daiva is also situated within the common "prakaram". The existence of the shrines of Ammanvaru and Annappa Daiva in the same "prakaram" as the Manjunatha temple therefore shows that Manjunatha temple cannot even claim to have any exclusive premises of its own so as to constitute an endowment within the meaning of clause (11 ) of section 9 of the Act. The High Court has found it as a fact that the shrine of Manjunatha is an "adjunct" to the composite institution of Dharmasthal and according to the customs and usages of the said institution	 the shrine of Sri Manjunatha cannot be separated from the rest. In arriving at this conclusion the High Court has taken into consideration those facts which have been established by the evidence on the record. It will be sufficient to make a brief reference to the follow ing 14 facts 'which have been mentioned by the High Court	 (i) All the shrines in Dharmasthal were rounded by the Heggade who was a Jain. (ii) All the shrines are situated in close proximity on "wrag" lands of which the 'patta ' is in the name of Heggade. (iii) The rituals of all the shrines are interconnected. (iv) All places of worship participate in the installa tion of the Heggade (Exs. A 58 and A 108). (v) The 'pooja ' is reciprocal e.g. whenever there is an important ceremony in Maniunatha shrine	 special 'pooja ' has to be performed in Chandranatha Basthi which is a Jain institution (exhibit A 108). 898 (vi) All 'prasadam ' is normally given only from Amman varushrine and not from Manjunatha temple	 (P. Ws. 3	 4 and 5). (vii) The festivals	 including that relating to "makara shankranti"	 of all the shrines	 are common (P.W.2 and exhibits A 69 and A 70). (viii) All offerings are made and received for the entire institution and not for any particular deity (Exs. A 69	 A 70 and A 108)	 and the public do not make any distinc tion in making the offerings and whatever is given is for Dharmasthal as a whole (exhibit A 108). (ix) On Heggade 's death	 'pooja ' is ' stopped in all institutions until ' purification (exhibit A 108). (x) "Hoilus" or complaints are made to Dharmasthal as a whole ' and 'prasadam ' is given to the complainants from Ammanvaru shrine Ex A 72). (xi) Chandranatha Basthi	 which is a Jain institution	 is closely interlinked with aH the other institutions in Dharmasthal. (xii) The paraphernalia of "Daivas" (who are Jain dei ties) is kept in Manjunatha and Ammanvaru shrines (exhibit A 108). (xiii) There is extraordinary unity of interest between the Heggade and Dharmasthal (Exs. A 107 and A 103) and no distinction is made between the office of Heggade and the deities (exhibit A 104). (xiv) The deities which had been installed before the installation of the 'lingam ' in the Manjunatha temple con tinued to enjoy their previous importance (exhibit A 105) and Dharmasthal could not be said ' to have been dedicated to Manjunatha but to the earlier deities. To the above may be added the following further facts	 (i) The entire income of all the institutions consti tutes one common fund from which the expenses of all the shrines and the Heggade are: met (Report exhibit B 2 of R.W. 3). (ii) The vast charity which is undertaken was in exist ence even before the installation of the 'lingam ' in Manju natha shrine (P.W. 3). (iii) While the 'lingam ' was installed in Manjunatha temple by Vadiraja Swamjar of Sode Mutt	 Udipi	 as an exclu sively Hindu God	 in its present "garbagriha" which exclu sively contains that 'lingam ' and has no non Hindu God	 the Jain Daivas have continued to be worshipped side by side	 in the adjacent Ammanvaru shrine. Even in the presence of the Swamiar	 the Heggade was present at the time of worship and offered 'Kanikam ' (R.W. 9). Whosoever went to Dharmasthal	 whether a Hindu or a Jain worshipped Manjunatha and the other deities and Daivas alike (exhibit A 108). (iv) It may be that Brahmins perform 'pooja ' in Manjuna tha temple	 but that is done in the presence of the Heggade (R.W. 11) who also worships Manjunatha and controls all the institutions as one integral Dharmasthal. (v) The Jain shrine of Anna Daiva is also within the same 'prakaram ' in which the temples of Manjunatha and Ammanvaru are ' situated. 899 It therefore appears that the High Court was justified in taking the view that Manjunatha temple is part and parcel of the composite institution known as Dharmasthal and is so inseparably connected with it that it is its integral part. It cannot therefore be held that the Manjunatha temple is an "endowment" within the meaning of clause (11 ) of section 9 of the Act for it has not been proved that any property belongs to it	 or has been given or endowed for its support or for the performance of any service or charity connected therewith	 or that it has any such premises of its own as could be said to form its own endowment. It would follow from what has been said above that even if 'the Manjunatha temple is assumed to be a place used	 as of right	 for public religious worship by Hindus	 it could come under the purview of the Act only if it could be estab lished that it was a 'religious endowment ' within the meaning of section 2	 but this has not been proved to be so. On the other hand it appears that the present institution of Dharmasthal was originally a Jain religious and charitable institution to which property was endowed by the ancestors of the present Heggade who was himself a Jain. It was that endowment which spread and gained more and more importance over the years because of the offerings made largely by Hindu and Jain devotees and worshippers. But it has not been established that there is any endowment which could be said to belong exclusively to Manjunatha temple. Even if any such endowment was made by some one in the name of Manjuna tha temple	 (as stated by K.C. Nambayar R.W. 3)	 it was taken to be an endowment for the entire institution known as Dharmasthal and was treated as such. The Manjunatha temple cannot therefore be said to be a Hindu religious endowment within the meaning of section 2. The provisions of the Act are not applicable to it	 and the Board clearly erred in holding otherwise. It has been argued by Mr. Chowdhary for the appellant that generally speaking Hindus include Jains. According to him	 the underlying assumption in the Act is that Jains are also Hindus	 and that the fact that Jains also worship in a Hindu temple will not detract from the fact that it is a Hindu temple as it is not necessary that a Hindu temple should be a place exclusively for Hindu public religious worship. Reference in this connection has been made to The All India Sai Samaj (Registered) by its President D. Bhima Rao	 Mylapore vs The Deputy Commissioner for Hindu Reli gious and Charitable Endowments (Administration) Depart ment	 Madras 34	 and others	 ( 1 ) The State of Madras by the Secretary	 Revenue Department	 Madras and another vs The Urumu Seshachalam Chettiar Charities	 Tiruchirapalli	 by its Board of Trustees and others	(2) and section Kannan and others vs The All India Sai Samaj (Registered) by its President	 D. Bhima Rao	 Mylapore(3). It will be sufficient to say that what section 9(12) of the Act requires by way of definition of a 'temple ' is that for purposes of the Act a 'temple ' should be dedicated for public religious worship	 as of right	 and it would not detract from its character as such if Jains also worship there. The argument of Mr. Chowdhary is	 however	 (1) (2) (3) 900 futile because	 as has been mentioned	 the provisions of the Act will not be attracted to the Manjunatha temple in the absence of any evidence to prove the existence of an endow ment for it. It has next been argued by Mr. Chowdhary that unless the temple of Manjunatha could be shown to be a Jain endowment it would come within the definition of 'temle ' in the Act. This argument has only to be stated to be rejected because	 as has been shown	 there is no evidence to show that there is any endowment for the Manjunatha temple as .such	 and the temple is a part and parcel of Dharmasthal which came to be endowed in the facts and circumstances mentioned above. An ancillary argument has been made that an infer ence of Hindu endowment for the benefits of the public should be drawn from the facts that the deity belongs to the Hindu Trinity	 the architecture of the temple is that of a Hindu temple	 the rituals are performed by Brahmins ac cording to Hindu form of worship and honey is used for "abhisheka" which is contrary to the Jain form of worship. We have already assumed that the temple possesses the char acteristics which make it a Hindu temple	 but even so there is no justification for the argument that there is any endowment for it as such. Then it has been argued by Mr. Chowdhary that Manjunatha temple is not an "adjunct" to the composite institution of Dharmasthal for it is the most important temple in the campus. It has been urged that mere common management .and control cannot justify the argument that Manjunatha temple is an inseparable part of the Dharmasthal It is not neces sary to examine this argument once again	 for we have given our reasons for taking a contrary view. Another argument of Mr. Chowdhary is that formal dedica tion of the endowment to the temple of Manjunatha was not necessary and that its user by the Hindus as of right would be enough to prove the initial dedication. Reliance for the argument has been placed on B.K. Mukherjee on the Hindu Law of Religious and Charitable Trusts. third edition	 page 27	 which makes a mention of the rituals to be observed when a donor wants to consecrate a temple and establish a deity in it. It may be that	 in a given case	 it may be difficult to prove the original dedication because of the lapse of con siderable time but	 in the present case it would not be possible to conclude that there was any such dedication because there is nothing to show how Vadiraja Swamiar	 who installed the 'lingam ' in Manjunatha temple	 could be said to be a donor when the property did not belong to him	 In the view	 we have taken	 we find no force in this appeal and it is hereby dismissed with costs. BEG	 J. I agree with the order proposed by my learned brother Shinghal. But	 I would like to indicate my own reasons in this case for reaching this conclusion. The following facts appear from the petition filed on 22nd July	 1949	 by the Heggade or trustee of the Manjunatha temple	 and from affidavits and other documents filed either in support or in opposition to it	 in the Court of the District Judge of South Kannara	 in proceed 901 ings under Section 84(2) of the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act of 1927	 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act '): In 1926	 the Manjunatha temple was exempted by a Government notification from the operation of the provisions of the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act 1923. On 28th June	 1945	 the Board	 which had been set up under Section 10 of the Act of 1927	 informed the Heggade that it was examining the position afresh whether the exemption which had been granted in 1926 should be withdrawn. After due enquiry the Board had moved the Government on 26th October	 1945	 to cancel the exemption and it was cancelled by the Government on both December	 1945	 under the provisions of Act 2 of 1927. On 7th February	 1946	 the Heggade had made an application to the Government to review the cancellation. Thereupon	 the Government directed the Board to enquire into the whole question again. That enquiry before the Board took place on 27th July	 1946. The Board gave its decision on 9th March	 1949	 holding that the temple was covered by the provisions of the Act. It was in circumstances stated above that the Heggade had made an application before the District Judge after the coming into force on May 15	 1946	 of the amending of Act 10 of 1946. The whole proceeding before the District Judge took place as a fresh and original trial in the course of which detailed oral and documentary evidence was produced in support of the respective cases by the two sides to the dispute which were: the Heggade of the Jain Dharamas thala	 of which the temple was said to be a part	 and the Board of Commissioners under the Act (probably substituted by the Commissioner after the repeal of the Act and its substitution by other enactments on the subject). There was no argument before us on the question whether the proceedings were governed by the provisions of the Act before its amendment in 1946 or its provisions as they stood after the amendment. But	 it appears to me that the case proceeded on the footing that the amended Act	 which had come into force before the Heggade had petitioned to the District Judge	 governed the rights of the parties and the scope of the enquiry. The question whether the Institution known as Dharmasthala included the Manjunatha temple or whether Manjunatha temple could be said to have a separate legal entity of its own as an Institution seems to me to be covered by the provisions of Section 84 as they stood both before the amendment in 1946 and after it was amended in 1946. An appeal to the High Court	 however	 lay under the amended provisions only	 There was no objection to the appeal to the High Court on the ground that the unamended provisions did not contain such a right. Here	 I may	 for the purpose of clarifying the exact scope of the enquiry out of which the case now before us by special leave has arisen	 reproduce the provisions of Section 84 of the Act both before and after its amendment in 1946. The unamended provisions of Section 84 read as follows: "84(1) If any dispute arises as to whether an institution is a math or temple as defined in this Act or whether a temple is an excepted temple	 such dispute shall be decided by the Board. 902 (2) Any person affected by a decision under sub section (1) may	 within one year	 apply to the Court to modify or set aside such decision	 but	 subject to the result of such application	 the order of the Board shall be final". After the amendment by Act X of 1946	 Section 84 reads as follows: "84(1) If any dispute arises as to (a) whether an institution is a math or temple as defined in this Act	 (b) whether trustee is a hereditary trustee as defined in this Act or not	 or (c) whether any property or money endowed is a specific endowment as ' defined in this Act	 or not. Such dispute shall be decided by the Board and no Court in the exercise of its original jurisdiction shall take cognizance of any such dispute. (2) Any person affected by a decision under sub section (1)	 may within six months apply to the Court to modify or set aside such decision. (3) From every order of a District Judge	 on an application under sub section (2)	 an appeal shall lie to the High Court within three months from the date of the order. (4) Subject to the result of an applica tion under subsection (2) or of an appeal under Sub section (3)	 the decision of the Board shall be final. (Substituted by Madras Act X of 1946)". The case of the Heggade or the managing trustee was far from consistent. He took up the following positions: firstly	 that the temple was "private" and not a public temple and was exempt from the provisions of the Act for that reason; secondly	 that the temple was a Jain institution	 or	 an integral part of it	 and	 therefore	 excluded from the purview of the Act; and	 thirdly	 that the temple	 even if it was to be deemed to be a Hindu temple	 as a place at which the Hindu public could worship as of right	 was really not separable from the larger Jain institution	 so that	 irrespective of the character of worship or the beliefs of the worshippers at the temple	 it was not an institution which could be viewed separately from the Dharamasthala or be held to be just a Hindu temple as an "institution '. The Board considered the Heggade 's case to be "that the Institu tion is a unique institution where a Hindu temple was round ed and managed by a Jain family". A subtle distinction was thus made between the temple as a place of worship and as a part of a larger Jain institution. Although	 I am doubtful of the correctness of this distinction	 on facts	 yet	 for the reasons given below	 I do not consider this to be a fit case for interference with the findings of the High Court	 accepting the correctness of this distinction	 on the par ticular facts of the case before us. 903 It seems to me that the question whether the Manjunatha temple could be described as a Hindu temple as defined by the Act	 could be conclusively answered by a reference to a number of admissions of the Heggade and his witnesses. Indeed	 the exemption of the temple from the provisions of the Act by the State Government in exercise of its powers under Section 3(1) of the Act	 could be sought by the Heg gade only on the assumption that the temple constituted a Hindu religious endowment which ought to be exempted from the operations of the provisions of the Act. If it was exempt by virtue of a statutory provision from the provi sions of the Act	 as a Jain institution	 there was no need for an order to exempt it. The scope of proceedings which have come up before us seems to go no further than resolu tion of certain disputes. They may	 however	 involve making of certain declarations. The origin of the temple was said to be given in a document containing a statement of 1806	 'by the then Dharmasthala Heggade	 produced by the managing Heggade	 which runs as follows: "There was formerly a woman called Amoo Devi Ballalthi placed there by the favour of God to perform the ceremonies. The God 's name was Durga Amba Kallarkie	 but was subsequently changed to Kanya Kumari. God appeared to the woman in a dream and revealed himself to her telling her he would remain in her house and 'she should therefore procure a bed and a light for him to perform ceremonies	 also that she should build another house near to his to perform ceremonies in and that her children and heirs should accordingly succeed her. Under this arrangement	 the temple shall ever flourish. As related before	 the God in the shape of a woman revealed himself to Ballalthy and the Ballalthy acted accordingly. In the 1396 Sahvahanam	 the Peer of Udipi	 Wadirajas wamy	 arrived at Dharmasthala where the Bal lalthy ordered him to prepare his dinner and on the next day to leave the place. The Peer replied: "This is the residence of Devil. I must establish God in it before I eat my din ner". On this	 the Ballalthy consulted he God in her sleep	 who appeared and encouraged her	 desired her to give the Peer whatever was required and told her he would establish the Kuddera God there saying 'you will tell this to the Peer who on hearing it will eat his dinner '. When I bring the God from Kuddera you will have a place prepared on the left hand side for his residence and a Brahmin appointed to perform ceremonies. "On the same evening the Manjunatha (Kudder God) was brought and a house built and he was lodged in it on the next morning	 this was all seen. The Ballalthi informed the Peer of this. He accordingly came and after dining departed. Sometime afterwards the Ballalthy built a house on the right hand side and made it the residence of the God and Brahmins were ap pointed to perform ceremonies to both. The old God (viz.	 that of the Ballalthy) some time afterwards told the Ballalthy he had appointed the devil Kulataya to preside over the offerings and therefore she must build a house for him	 904 to expend all the religious offerings proper ly	 should any dispute arise	 proper investi gations were to be made. 'Some delay being made in the collection of the offerings by Kulataya	 Annappa	 another Devil was fixed	 for whom another residence was built and four people were chosen to superintend the chari ties which the offerings admitted of. ". As the Board observed	 it appeared that Sri Manjunatha idol was installed on the occasion of Vadirajaswamy of Udipi 's visit to the Dharmasthala. This was taken to be the introduction of the worship of God as opposed to that of the Devil. Sri Manjunatha was the installed God. It was as serted that this was in accordance with Jain beliefs. It was said that God spoke through the Heggade who acted as the oracle and used to answer questions put to him by devotees at special sessions arranged for this purpose. It was	 however	 clear that Hindus in general were not prohibited from worshipping at this temple. They had worshipped here long enough freely and publicly to acquire the right to worship as members of the Hindu public in general. This right	 I think	 could not now be denied to them whatever be its origin. After an elaborate discussion of the nature of beliefs and worship	 the Board had concluded: ". it is clear that Shri Manjunatha Temple	 Dharmasthala	 Puttur Taluk	 South Kanara District is a 'temple ' as defined in Madras Act II of 1927 and we decide accordingly". When the matter went up before the District Judge under Section sub. section (2) of the Act	 the District Judge	 after discussing the evidence	 recorded his conclusion as follows: "Therefore it appears to me that taking into consideration all these circumstances the claim of the petitioner that this Shri Manju natha Shrine though it may be a Hindu one in his private temple seems to be well founded and it is not a temple which is either ex pressly dedicated to the Hindu public or which has been used or resorted to by the Hindu public as of right". It is difficult for me to understand where the District Court found the law which requires "express" dedication for use by the Hindu public or why he thought that the public had not acquired a right to worship. Its findings	 at any rate	 carried with them the implication that	 although there was a dedication	 it was for "private" purposes. I find it difficult to conceive of such a transaction. Dedication to a deity necessarily implies a cessation of individual human ownership. The dispute was then taken to the High Court of Mysore	 which reached the conclusion	 after a detailed discussion of the whole evidence: "If	 'Sri Manjunatha ' were a Hindu deity exclusively and not a deity worshipped by the Jains as well	 it is inconceivable that the name 'Manaya ' should be found among 9 Jains also. In our opinion	 Sri Manjunatha is a deity worshipped 905 both by the Hindus as well as the Jains in accordance with their respective faiths and it is neither an exclusively Hindu deity nor an exclusively Jain deity". It then stated its views as follows: "Since the institution is not a 'Temple ' as defined in the Act	 the further question whether it is a private temple of Nellyadi Beedu family as contended by the Neggade does not arise for determination. The proceedings before the Board and the Court below are under the Act. In view of our finding that the Institution is not a 'temple ' under the Act	 the Board has no jurisdiction over the Institution. Having held that the Act has no application to the Institution and the Board has no jurisdiction over it as contended by the Heggade	 the Court below should have desisted from giving any finding on the ques tion whether it is a private temple of Nellya di Beedu family. We express no opinion on the said issue". The High Court 's view seemed to be that there was a "dedication" but for mixed purposes Outside the Act. Jain beliefs	 as distinct from generally held and accepted Hindu beliefs	 the origin and nature of the endowments	 the estab lished practices and customs relating to management of the temple	 the receipt and disbursement of income of what was held to be a single institution called Dharmasthala	 had been taken into account by the High Court in order to decide whether "the institution" is a "temple" as defined in the Act or something more. Its opinion seemed to be that the real question to be decided here was not whether there was a temple	 as defined by the Act	 but whether the temple	 which existed there	 was an inseparable part and parcel of a Jain institution which was outside the Act	 or	 it was an insti tution which	 taken by itself	 was covered by the Act. If the temple was	 so to speak	 a mere appendage of the larger multi purposed institution	 all the parts of which were managed as a single entity	 the temple could not	 in the opinion of the High Court	 be "the institution". Although	 I am prepared to accept the High Court 's findings on questions of fact	 I do not find it possible to agree with the High Court 's view that	 if a place of worship is open to both Jains and Hindus in general	 or	 has a mixed character	 it is not a temple within the meaning of that term as defined in Section 9	 sub. section (12) of the Act. All that Section 9	 sub. section (12) requires is that it should be a place of worship either dedicated for the benefit of or used as of right by the Hindu community or a section thereof as a place of religious worship. The word exclusively is not there at all so as to justify any exclusion of a place of worship from the definition of a temple on the ground that the place of worship is not confined to worship	 as a matter of right	 to either Hindus as members of the general public or to any section of Hindus. The Act does not define the term "Hindu". This word has had a fairly wide connotation. In origin	 it indicated people living in the Indus region. It is only by subsequent usage and extension of meaning 906 that the word acquired a religious	 and	 therefore	 in this sense	 a more limited significance. But	 in some contexts	 the term. "Hindu"	 even today	 stands for Indians in gener al. In foreign countries all Indians are sometimes described as "Hindus". Even as a term used for Indians professing a particular type of beliefs	 which are presumed to have an indigenous origin	 it is wide enough to include Jains and Sikhs. Hence	 this is the meaning given to the term Hindu in the Hindu Succession Act. In a statute deal ing with religious endowments	 the term	 even though not defined	 may be presumed to stand for people of this country with certain religious beliefs held or forms of religious worship practised by people of this country originally. But	 this would also embrace a very wide sector of the public. And	 in any event	 there is nothing whatsoever in the definition of "temple" by the Act to justify the infer ence that Jains or any other group of person must be exclud ed from worship before it can be a "temple". For reasons given above	 I am unable to read into the defi nition of the word	 "temple"	 given in the Act	 the idea of excluding from the benefits of the Act temples open for worship to Hindus of all sects and beliefs. This means that a place of worship where Jains	 as a section of Indian citizens	 even when distinguished by their special doctrines and practices from the rest of the Hindus	 worship together with Hindus of other sects	 could not be a temple outside the Act. All that the Act requires is that Hindus in gener al	 or even a section of Hindus	 should be able to worship there as of fight. This requirement is	 in my opinion	 satisfied by Shri Manjunatha temple on the findings of the High Court which I accept	 not without hesitation	 as correct. The view I have taken above is	 however	 not enough	 in my opinion	 to dispose of an issue under section 84(1)(a) of the Act. It has to to borne in mind that the issue to be decided under Section 84(1)(a) of the Act is whether an "institution" is a math or temple as defined in the Act. It is not whether a particular place is a temple	 in the sense that it is set apart for worship by the Hindu public in general or a section of it. It is whether an "institution" itself is a temple as defined by the Act. The term temple has been defined in section 9(12) of the Act as follows : "9(12) 'Temple ' means a place	 by what ever designation known	 used as a place of public religious worship and dedicated to	 or for the benefit of	 or used as of right by	 the Hindu community or any section thereof	 as a place of religious worship". It	 therefore	 becomes necessary	 in order to decide a dispute under section 84(1)(a) whether a particular place is a temple as contemplated by the Act. But	 that is not enough for the decision of the whole issue to be decided under Section 84(1)(a) of the Act. For that purpose	 atten tion has to be also directed towards deciding the question whether the "institution" to be considered is a temple and nothing more. If the temple	 as a place of worship	 is an integral part of an institution	 so that it is not separable as an institution	 in itself	 the mere fact that there is a 'temple '	 as defined by the Act	 where 907 Hindu members of the public worship as a matter of right	 will not do	 In such a case	 the "institution" is not the temple	although a temple can	 by itself	 be an institution. The term "institution" is not defined in the Act of 1927	 although	 in the more elaborate provisions of Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act XXII of 1959	 there is now definition of the term "religious institution" as well showing that this concept is wider than that of a temple. If	 therefore	 there is a distinction between the mean ings of "temple" merely as a place of worship	 as defined in Section 9(12)	 and a "temple" as an institution	 as there seems to me to be	 an authority deciding the issue whether it is an "institution"	 as contemplated by Section 84(1)(a) of the Act	 will have to consider whether the history	 the beliefs lying at the inception and sought to he propagated	 the forms of worship meant to be kept alive	 the prevalent customs and practices	 the exact nature and process of the endowments connected with the institution	 the established rules for its management	 the objects to be carried out by those in charge of the endowment	 taken together	 would justify the inference that a particular "temple"	 as defined by the Act	 is also a separate or separable institution by itself or is just an integral and organically inseparable part of an institution or organisation outside the Act. These wider aspects	 which may not appear to be relevant at first sight	 seem quite necessary to consider when we close ly examine the nature of the issue contemplated by Sec tion 84(1)(a) of the Act and decided by the High Court. In the case before us	 the findings of the High Court show that the institution or organisation of which Manjuna tha temple is an inseparable part	 is predominantly Jain in character. On such a finding	 it would be exempt from the operation of the Act by reason of the explanation to section 2 excluding Jain "religious endowments" from the benefits of the Act. It may be that very good grounds could be given for holding that the temple is a separable or separate entity dedicated	 by user	 for worship by Hindus in general	 without restriction of worship by Jains only as a matter of right. But	 as two views seer	 to be reasonably open on the question whether it is such a separate or separable insti tution or entity: I do not consider it fit to be reopened by us under Article 136. A consideration of the property which belongs to or is "endowed for the support of maths or temples or for perform ance of any service or charity connected therewith and includes the premises of maths or temples" may also become necessary so as to determine the character of an endowment as a part of the "institution" and the process by which it took place. The institution endowed	 on the findings of the High Court	 being more than or wider than the Manjunatha temple	 is not just a Hindu temple although a temple	 by itself	 could be such an institution if it were a separable entity. The origin and process of dedication is not always found embodied in a document. Where the dedication itself is evidenced by a document	 its objects	 such as they may be can be determined by interpreting the document which makes the task of the authorities deciding the question generally easier. There are	 however	 many cases in 8 1338SCI/76 908 which dedication or endowment of property for a particular purpose has to be inferred from immemorial user of a property in a particular manner or from the conduct of a party	 such as permission to build a road for use by the public or permission to bury the dead on a piece of land. The last. mentioned type of case may also give rise some times to an estoppel against the owner of the land. Cases where an inference of "dedication" results from what may be considered immemorial user or a kind of permissible user giving rise to an estoppel	 because others have spent money or done 'some act on the strength of 'a licence or permission to use the land for a particular purpose	 are not uncommon in our country. They should not	 as Lord Macnaghten hinted in Bholanath Nundi vs Midnapore Zemindary Co. Ltd.	(1) be complicated by resorting to the peculiar English notions of dedication	 when he said: "It appears to their Lordships that on proof of the fact of enjoyment from time immemorial there could be no difficulty in the way of the Court finding a legal origin for the right claimed. Unfortunately however (in the lower Courts) the question was over laid	 and in some measure obscured	 by copious references to English authorities and by the application of principles or doctrines	 more or less refined	 rounded on legal conceptions not altogether in harmony with Eastern no tions". After quoting the passage	 set out above	 Lord Radcliffe	 in Lakshmindhar Misra & Ors. vs Rangalal & Ors. 	(2) pointed out (atp. 58) about such dedications in English law: "But dedication is only known to English law as something equivalent to an irrevocable licence granted by the owner of soil to the use of the public. Dedication of a piece of land to a limited section of the public	 such as the inhabitants. of a village	 is a claim unknown in law	 and evidence limited to such special user would not justify a finding of dedication: see Poole vs Huskinson	 ; (63 R.R. 782)	 Hildrath vs Adam son; 	 ; (125 R.R. 794). Berrnondsey vs Brown	 It was explained in Lakshmidhar Misra 's case (supra) that the doctrine of lost grant originated in English law "as a technical device to enable title to be made by prescription despite the impossibility of proving immemorial user". Prescription by a convention	was deemed to start in 1189	 when Normans conquered England. The real basis of such rights in English law seemed to be prescription. In this very case	 differences were pointed out between a dedication and a customary right enjoyed by people of a locality to use a particular piece of land on certain occa sions. It was indicated here that a. dedication	 by pre sumed lost grant	 in English law	 unlike. customary rights	 which (1) 31 I.A. 75. (2) A.I.R. 1950. P.O. 56. 909 may become attached to land	 postulates a grantee and the creation of an estate. Although certain essential or basic prerequisites of a valid trust in English law	 such as the three reasonable certainties laid down by Lord Eldon in Knight vs Knight(1) that of the obligation to be carried out	 that of the subject matter or of property affected by it	 and that of the object to be served or the persons to be benefited are required in this country too for valid endow ments no less than they are in England	 yet	 valid dedica tions can be inferred	 under our law__	 without showing compliance with at least some of the technical requirements of English law. Dedications in Hindu law do not require acceptance of property dedicated for a religious or a public purpose. In Monohar Ganesh V. Lakhmiram(2)	 a rule of Hindu law coming down from ancient times was thus stated: "A Hindu who wishes to establish a religious or charitable institution may	 according to his law	 express his purpose and endow it	 and the ruler will give effect to the bounty or at least protect it so far	 at any rate	 as is consistent with his own Dharma or conception of morality". Neither a document nor express words are essential for a dedication for a religious or public purpose in our country. Such dedication may ' be implied from user permitted for public and religious purposes for sufficient length of time. The conduct of those whose property is presumed to be dedicated for a religious or public purpose and other. circumstances are taken into account in arriving at the inference of such a dedication. Although religious ceremo nies of Sankalpa and Samarpanam are relevant for proving a dedication	 yet	 they are not indispensable (see: B.K. Mukherjee on the "Hindu Law of Religious. and Charitable Trusts" Third Edn. 1970 p. 80). The question of an implied dedication by user by the public is particularly important in cases like the one before us where a claim that a trust is private or sectarian in nature is set up against a wider claim on behalf of the general public. In Deoki Nandan vs Murlidhar(3)	 this Court said: "the distinction between a private and a public trust is that whereas in the former the beneficiaries are specific individuals	 in the latter they are the general public or a class thereof. While in the former the bene ficiaries are persons who are ascertained or capable of being ascertained	 in the latter they constitute a body which is incapable of ascertainment". In B.K. Mukherjea 's Tagore Law Lectures on the Hindu Law of Religious and Charitable Trusts (1970) (3rd edition)	 we find the following passage at page 143: (1) ; (2) 1. 	 263; (3) ; 910 "In cases where no express dedication is proved	 the character 'of the endowment must always be a legal inference from proved facts. As in the case of highways	 long user is. undoubtedly a material element from which an inference of dedication may arise. If the public have been in the habit of worshipping in the temple in an open and unconcealed manner	 for a long period of time	 and were never denied any access to it	 that would be a strong evidence of dedication. With regard to period of user	 no hard and fast rule has been laid down. 'There is no minimum which must be fulfilled	 and there is no maximum which compels the inference '. Each case would depend upon its own circumstances. Besides user by the public	 conduct of the founder and his descendants is also relevant	 and if they in fact held out the temple to be a public temple	 a very strong presumption of dedica tion would arise". Cases are also cited there where reliance had been placed upon circumstances such as the structure or the location of a temple outside a private residence or dwelling so as to be exposed to public view and ' worship by members of the gener al public to infer dedication for the public. In Pujari Lakshmana Goundan vs Subramaniya	(1) the question for determination was whether a Hindu temple round ed between 1841 and 1856 had been dedicated for use by the public by its founder who had executed no deed showing this. But	 the founder	 Lakshmana Goundan	 was shown to have in stalled an idol at his house and allowed Brahmins and Hindus to worship the idol as if it was a public place of worship. The Hindu public was admitted free of charge	 though only on certain days in the week	 in the greater part of the temple	 and	 in one part only on payment of a fee	 and	 in the inner shrine	 not at all. It appears that the income from offer ings and fees was spent by the Pujari founder on the temple and the idol as well as on himself. Nevertheless their Lordships of the Privy Council held that Lakshmans Goundan	 having held out and represented u:	 the Hindu public that the temple was for their benefit	 the inference was irre sistible that had dedicated the temple for use by the public. In B.K. Mukharji 's Lectures (supra)	 the facts of this case have been cited as an example of an application of the principle of estoppel. Our law reports abound with similar cases where dedication by founders or owners is inferred or presumed	 irrespective of their own religious persuasions	 from ' the purposes for which a piece of proper ty has been used for long enough. In some cases the ele ments of an estoppel are present. But	 the basis of such dedications seems	 in many cases of this type	 to be	 strictly speaking	 nothing more than a presumption from certain ' facts. Perhaps we could describe it	 in most cases of this sort	 as a "deemed dedication" although it must not be confused with a fiction. It is	 after all	 an inference from facts which must exist and lead to the con clusion deduced. (1) 911 In view of tiffs well established doctrine .of. implied endowment of property	 by its long user for a particular religious or public purpose. 	 based on a presumed consent of the owner	 I do not think that the High Court could be held to have reached a wrong conclusion even if it has inferred that	 whatever be the origin of the Manjunatha temple	 it had become a separate institution with an endowment of its own consisting at least of the land over which the temple had been built	 'the building	 and the idol installed with free access to it by the Hindu public in general which made offerings even though Jains also worship there. Neverthe less	 in view of the discussion of a good deal of evidence of the peculiar composite character of the institution known as Dharmasthala	 and	 bearing in mind our general rule of practice that we do not disturb findings of the final Court of fact where two views are possible	 I do not propose to differ from the conclusion reached by the High Court that the temple was not a separate institution. The Manjunatha temple	 on the findings of the High Court	 which we are upholding	 had become an accretion or growth on the body	 if one may so .out it	 of the institution known as Dharmastha la	 even though it could be removed from that body by a surgical operation. It is not for us to say	 on the find ings before us	 whether a situation has arisen in which a surgical operation may be called for. Such an opinion can only be given upon the results of a more thorough investiga tion 'into the objects of the institution	 its properties	 the sources of its income	 and the manner in which they are utilised than we have before us. The question which troubles me	 however	 is whether a religious 'institution or even that part of it to which members of the public make .contributions	 through their offering and gifts	 is to be left entirely uncontrolled by authorities specially appointed by the State in order to see that such income or donations are not misused or are uti lised for the purposes for which they are meant. It seems to me that religious beliefs	 professions	 and practices	 which have a powerful hold over the minds and feelings of the people	 particularly in our country	 should not be permitted to become mere cloaks for exploiting the credu lity of the simple minded and the ignorant and unsophisti cated. When a religious institution becomes a means of obtaining money or material benefits	 in the form of offer ings or donations or gifts	 as it generally does	 from members of the public	 a danger of its misuse can only be effectively averted. by appropriate supervision. It seems to me that this is the whole purpose of the Act. 'The income from the public	 through a religious institution	 seems to me to bring in that secular aspect which justifies interference by State authorities through adequate supervi sion. However	 these are matters which so far as religious endowments	 such as the one before us	 held to be predomi nantly Jain	 for the reasons given by the High Court	 are concerned	 the State Government can take into account in deciding whether it 912 should exercise its powers under Section 3(2) of the Act	 to extend the benefits of the Act to them	 or	 if necessary	 to amend the Act. The District Court did not specifically frame or try any issue on the question whether any endowment existed at all. It had framed the following points for determination: "( 1 ) Is the Sri Manjunatha 'Devaru only a part of the institution known as Dharmasthala and not a separate institution in itself?. (2) Is the Dharmasthala a charitable institution? (3) Is the Dharmasthala and in particular the Manju natha Devaru not an exclusively Hindu place of worship ? If not do not the provisions of the Hindu Religious Endowments Act apply? (4) Is the Manjunatha Devaru a private place of wor ship. (5) Is the order of the Board dated 9th March 1949 liable to be set aside?" The High Court also did not give the finding that no endowment whatsoever exists. The extent of property cov ered by any endowment was also not really investigated as to issue was flamed on it. Atleast the structure of the temple with the idol installed and the ground upon which the temple stands must be deemed to be dedicated even though these may not	 for purposes of management	 form separable units. The High Court took the view that the dispute falling under Section 84(2)(a) could be disposed of by deciding issues or points numbered 1 and 3 only. The District Court had chosen to resolve the principal dispute that arose by deciding issue No.4. Other questions were treated as merely subsidiary or even unnecessary to decide. I have tried to indicate above what seemed to me to be the real nature of the proceedings in the course of which a dispute covered by Section 84(1)(a)of the Act arose and also the principles on which such a dispute should	 in my opin ion	 be resolved	 although I do not consider it necessary	 in exercise of the special powers of this Court under article 136 to interfere with the High Court 's findings of fact; because I think that the powers of the Government which is not even a party	 acting under Section 3 of the Act	 are not restricted by decisions given by Courts in resolving a dispute covered by Section 84(1) of the Act. All that the Government was bound to do under Section 3 of the Act was to consult the Board. The Madras Hindu Religious and Charita ble Endowments Act of 1959	 which contains the law governing the subject today	 has section 2 relating to a general power to extend the provisions. of the Act to Jain public reli gious institutions and endowments as a mater of policy	 irrespective of the. character of management	 whether good or bad and Section 3	 for the extension of the provisions of the Act to particular. Jain religious 913 and charitable institutions	 in cases of mismanagement	 after due inquiry. These powers are not	 in any way	 affected by the dispute which has been brought before us under the provisions of an Act repealed long ago. For the reasons given above	 I concur with the order proposed by my learned brother Shinghal that this .appeal be dismissed and parties be left to bear their own costs throughout. V.P.S. Appeal dismissed.

Section 9(12) of the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act	 1926	 defines 'temple ' as a place	 by whatever designa tion known	 used as a place of public worship and .dedicated to	 or for the benefit of	 or used as of right by the Hindu community	 or any section thereof	 as a place of religious worship Section 9(11) provides that all property belonging to	 or given or endowed to the support of a temple or for the performance of any service or charity connected with the temple will constitute its endowment	 including the premises of the temple. Section 2 provides that the Act applies to all Hindu public religious endowments. The Section	 the Explanation to the section	 and section 3(b) shown that Hindu public religious endowments ' do not include private endow ments and Jain religious endowments. Dharmasthal	 in which the temple in dispute was situate has a number of institutions which were under the management of a person known as Heggade who was a Jain. The Religious Endowments Board	 after an enquiry	 held that the Act ap plied to the temple. On application made under section 84(2)	 the District Judge held that it was a private temple	 and that	 therefore	 the Act did not apply to it. On appeal	 the High Court did not .consider whether it was a private temple	 but held that the temple was an adjunct to the composite insti tution of Dharmasthal	 that	 according to the customs and usages of the institution	 the temple could not.be separated from the rest. of the institutions	 that Dharmasthal was both a religious and charitable institution	 that the deity in the temple was worshipped both by .the Hindus and the Jains in accordance with their respective faiths	 that the deity was .neither an exclusively Hindu deity not an exclu sively Jain deity	 that the institution. of Dharmasthal was rounded by the Jain	 that its administration remained exclu sively Jam since its inception	 that it could not be in ferred that there was an implied dedication to the Hindus exclusively	 and that therefore the temple	 was not a temple as defined in the Act	 and that the Act did not apply to it. The High Court also held that its property was also an adjunct to the composite institution consisting of Hindu Gods	 Jain Gods and Daivas	 worshipped by Hindus and Jains. Dismissing the appeal by special leave to this Court	 HELD: (Per A.N. Ray	 C.J.	 and P.N. Shinghal	 J): (1) Section 9(12) of the Act only requires that the temple should be dedicated for public religious worship	 as of right by Hindus	 but it would not detrace from its char acter of a temple as such if Jains also worship there. The pro visions of the Act will however not be attracted to it in the absence of and evidence to prove the existence of an endowment for it	 as the Act applies only to Hindu public religious endowments. [899 H	 900 A] (2) The evidence in the case shows that the institution of Dharmasthal was originally a Jain religious and charita ble restitution to which property was endowed by the ances tors of the present Heggade who was himself a Jain. It was that endowment which spread and gained more and more impor tance over the years because of the offerings made largely by Hindu and Jain devotees and worshippers. A lingam was installed in the temple by a Hindu Sanyasi only in the 16th century; but	 it has not been established that there is any endowment which could be said to belong exclusively to the temple. Even if any such 890 endowment was made by some one in the name of the temple it was taken to be an endowment for the entire institution known as Dharmasthal and was treated as such. The temple cannot therefore be said	 to be a Hindu religious endowment within the meaning of section 2 and the provisions of the Act are not applicable to it. [896 F H: 897 A] (3) The evidence also shows that the temple is part and parcel of the composite institution known as Dharmasthal and is so inseparably connected with it that it is its integral part	 and it cannot therefore be held to be an endowment within the meaning of section 9(11). It has not been proved that any property belongs to the temple or has been given or endowed for its support or for the performance of any serv ice or charity connected therewith	 or that it has any such premises of its own as could be said to form its own endow ment. The mere installation of the idol in the temple could not be said to bring into existence any such property as could be said to belong to the deity or given or endowed for the support of its temple or for the performance of any service or charity connected therewith. The temple does not have even a separate prakararn. The shrine of the adja cent shrine is in dose proximity of the temple and within the same prakaram. The existence of other shrines of Jain Daivas in the same prakaram as the temple	 therefore	 shows that this temple cannot even claim to have any exclusive premises of its own so as to constitute an endowment within the meaning of section 9(11) of the Act. [897 A	 F] (4) In a given case	 it may be difficult to prove the original dedication because of the lapse of considerable time and its user by Hindus as of right may be enough to prove an initial dedication. But	 in the present case	 it would not be possible to conclude that there was any such dedication because there is nothing to show how the Hindu Sanyasi	 who installed the lingam in the temple in the 16th century	 could be. said to be a donor when the property did not belong to him. [900 	F G] (5) The facts that the temple was not shown to be a Jain endowment	 and hat it possesses the characteristics of a Hindu temple will not make	 any difference because	 there is no evidence to show that there is any endowment ' to the temple	 as such	 and the temple is a part and parcel of Dharmasthal. [900 A_B] Per Beg	 J. (1) In order to decide a dispute under section 84(1)(a) it is necessary to. decide whether a particular place is a temple as contemplated by the Act. But	 that is not enough for the decision of the whole issue to be decided. For that purpose attention has also to be directed towards deciding the question whether the institution to be considered is a temple and nothing more. If the temple	 as a place of worship	 is an integral part of an institution so that it is not separable as an institution in itself	 the mere fact that there is a temple as defined by the Act	 where Hindu members of the public worship as a matter of right	 will not go. In such a case	 the institution is not the temple	 although a temple can by itself	 be an institution. There is thus a distinction between the meanings of temple ' merely as a place of worship as defined in section 9(12) and a 'temple ' as an institution. It is therefore	 necessary to consider the history	 the beliefs underlying at the inception and sought to be propagated the forms of worship meant to be kept alive	 the prevalent customs and practices	 the exact nature and process of the endowments connected with the institution	 the established rules for its management	 the objects to be carried out by those in charge of the endow ment	 and whether all these taken together justify the inference. that a particular temple	 as defined by the Act	 is also a separate or separable institution by itself	 or is just an integral and organically inseparable part of an institution or an organisation outside the Act	 [903 A B	 906E	H 907 A C] (2) A consideration of the property which belongs to or is endowed for the support of temples or for performance of any service or charity connected therewith including the premises of temples may also become necessary so as to determine the character of an endowment as a part of the institution and the process by which it took place. [907 F G] (3) The origin 	and process of dedication is not always found embodied in document. Where the dedication itself is evidenced by a document	 its objects	 891 such as they may be	 can be determined by interpreting the document. There are	 however	 many cases in which dedica tion or endowment of property for a particular purposes has to be inferred from immemorial or long user of a property in a particular manner or from the conduct of a party. Neither a document nor express words are essential for a dedication for a religious or public purpose in our country. Although religious ceremonies of Sankalpa and Samarpanam are relevant for proving a dedication	 yet	 they are not indis pensable. [907 G H; 908 A B] Bholanath Nandi vs Midnapora Zamindary Co. Ltd. 31 I.A. 75	 Lakshmidhar Misra & Ors. vs Rangalal & Ors. AIR 1950 PC 56	 Manohar Gandhi vs Lakhmiram	 ILR @ 263	 Deoki Nandan vs Murlidhar	 [1956] S.C.R. '756 and Puajri Lakshmana Goundan vs Subramaniya referred to. All that section 9(12) requires is that the place should be a place of worship either dedicated for the benefit of or used as of right by the Hindu community or a section thereof as a place of religious worship. The word 'exclusively ' is not there at all so as to justify any exclusion of a place of worship from the definition of a temple on the ground that Jains worship together with Hindus of 'other sects. But	 the issue to be decided is whether the 'institution ' is a temple as defined in the Act. It is not whether a particu lar place is a temple	 in the sense that it is set apart for worship by the Hindu public in general or a section of it	 but it is whether an institution itself is a temple as defined by the Act. [905; D G	 906 F H	 907 A D]. (5) In the present case	 the findings of the High Court show that the institution or organisation of which the temple is an inseparable part	 is predominantly Jain in character. In view of the well established doctrine of implied endowment of property	 by its long user for a par ticular religious or public purpose	 based on a presumed consent	 it could be said that the temple had become a separate institution with an endowment of its own consisting at least of the land over which the temple had been built	 the building and the idol installed with free access to it by the Hindu public in general which made offerings even though Jains also worship there. But	 in view of the general rule of practice under article 136 of the Constitution that this Court does not disturb findings of the final court of fact where two views are possible	 this Court would not differ from the conclusion reached by the High Court that the temple was not a separate institution. On such a finding it would be exempt from the operation of the Act by reason of the Explanation to section 2 excluding Jain religious endowments from the benefits of the Act. [905 E H	 907 D F] (6)In the present case	 neither the District Judge nor the High Court had given any findings whether any endowment whatsoever of the temple existed. The extent of property covered by an endowment was also not really investigated as no issue was framed on it. At least the structure of the temple with the idol installed and the ground upon which the temple stands must be deemed to be dedicated even though these may not for purposes of management	 form separable units. When a religious institution becomes a means of obtaining money or material benefits	 in the form of offer ings or donations or gifts	 as it generally does	 from members of the public	 a danger of its misuse can only be effectively averted by appropriate supervision. The powers of the Government	 .under the relevant Act to extend the provisions of the Act to Jain public religious institutions which are not affected by the dispute brought before the Court	 are however	 adequate to deal with such situation. [912 A H	 913A]