Ganga Nath, J.
1. This is an application in revision by Nageshwar Prasad Singh against the order of the learned District Judge, Moradabad, passed under Section 5 Charitable and Religious Trusts Act (14 of 1920). A preliminary objection was raised by the learned Counsel for the opposite party that no revision lies under Section 115, Civil P.C. This point has been concluded by the case reported in (1929) 27 A L J 91l (1). So there is no force in the objection' of the opposite party.
2. The next point for consideration is whether the case fell under the Charitable and Religious Trusts Act. It is conceded by the applicant that the trust in question is a mixed trust partly for a public and charitable purpose and partly for a private purpose. It has been urged by the learned Counsel for the applicant that the Charitable and Religious Trusts Act does not apply to such a trust. According to him it applies only to a trust for a public purpose of a charitable or religious nature. He relied on Shabbir Hasan v. Ashiq Husain 1929 Oudh 225. In the deed of trust that was before the Full Bench there was no trace of a dedication of a specified sum of money for the purpose of being spent on the poor, needy and indigent. Indeed there were no words of dedication at all. Specified sums of money were allotted for the benefit of specified individuals and this allotment consumed the bulk of the property. The balance was left in the hands of the trustee for being utilized according to his direction on objects of charity at large, and it was with reference to this balance that the learned Judges of the Division Bench from which the reference was made to the Full Bench spoke of the settlement as a waqf for a public purpose. The Full Bench held that:
The words 'public purpose' in Section 3 of the Act of 1920 should not be interpreted in such a sense as to allow a trust which is created or exists for a public purpose in its substance and essence though supplemented by an illusory or wholly trifling provision, the purpose of which may not be public, or may be even private to be taken out of the provisions of the Act of 1920. The real substance of the trust and the primary intention of the creator of the trust must be looked at in every case.
3. The case here is different. It is a case of a trust created by a Hindu. If such a narrow interpretation were put on the words express or constructive trust created or existing for a public purpose of a charitable or religious nature' as is urged by the learned Counsel for the applicant, a person interested in the trust would have no remedy because his case will not come under the Charitable and Religious Trusts Act, nor would it come under Section 92, Civil P.C., where exactly the same words as are in Section 3, Charitable and Trusts Act, have been used. I see no difficulty in applying Section 3 to a deed which contains more than one trust, one of which may be a trust for a public purpose of a charitable or religious nature and the other for a private purpose. The words 'constructive trust' in Section 3 further show that the trust to which the Act applies need not be an express trust for a public purpose, but it would apply also to a trust which on the construction of the deed of trust may be held to be a trust created for a public purpose of a charitable or religious nature. I therefore hold that there is no force in the application. It is therefore ordered that it be dismissed with costs.