Innes, Officiating C.J.
1. The construction lately put by the Legislature upon Section 539 of Act X of 1877 by the alteration of the corresponding section in Act XIV of 1882 so as to include suits for breaches of trusts connected with religious purposes is evidence that the Legislature in framing Act X of 1877 intended to restrict the operation of Section 539 to suits for breaches of trusts connected with public charitable purposes exclusive of purposes that were purely religious. We were referred to the objects and reasons of the alteration (as stated in the Legislative Council) in proof that the Legislature regarded the section as it stood as embracing suits for such wrongs connected with both charitable and religious purposes, and only made the alteration in consequence of doubts which might be entertained. It is not admissible, however, to consider what is said in the course of debates in the Legislative Council. We must apply the ordinary rules of construction, and we come to the conclusion that trusts for religious purposes were excluded from the purview of Section 539 of the Code of 1877. We are fortified in our opinion by the opinion expressed in Radhabai v. Chimnaji I.L.R. 3 Bom. 27.
2. It appears to us that the purpose of this institution as described in the plaint (and the correctness of the description is not questioned), is primarily religious. There was a Pilliyar temple with well, flower garden, a pandaram to perform puja, a shed, and a porter's rest.
3. With the exception of the well and the porter's rest, there is nothing to indicate that it was intended for public charitable purposes, and these two things may have been attached to the institution to attract worshippers.
4. As we are of opinion that the institution is one which was not within the purview of the section as it stood in the Act of 1877, we must reverse the decrees of the Courts below and remand the suit for disposal by the District Munsif.
5. The costs hitherto will be costs in the cause.