JUDGMENT 1. We are of opinion that the statements of the 1st defendant on which the Subordinate Judge relies were not sufficient, considering the circumstances in which they were made to shift the burden of proof which lay on the plaintiff to show that this is one of the temples to which Section 3 of the Religious Endowments Act is applicable. There is absolutely no evidence that the Government or the Committee ever exercised, or attempted to exercise, any control over this temple prior to the year 1897, since which time the question has been in dispute between the parties. In these circumstances we must reverse the decree of the Subordinate Judge and restore that of the District Munsif with costs here and in the lower appellate Court.