Judgment :- These two appeals arise out of one common judgment rendered by Subordinate Judge of Ramanathapuram in Madurai, in O.S.No.65 of 1969 and O.S.No.124 1969. O.S.No.65 of 1969 was decreed, while O.S.No.124 of 1969 was dismissed. As against the decree in O.S.No.65 of 1969 A.S.No.710 of 1981 has been filed and as against decree passed in O.S.No.124 of 1969 A.S.No.828 of 1983 has been filed. O.S.No.65 of was filed by one K.T.T.Ramalingam Chettiar against Muthuramalingam Pillai and others, the eighth defendant being the Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments, Madras, while O.S.No.124 of 1969 was filed by the said Muthuramalingam and six others against the said K.T.T.Ramalingam Chettiar, the plaintiff in O.S.No.65 1969and that suit was filed for recovery of possession and for damages. Both the appeals can be disposed of in one common judgment. In both the suits the case of the respective parties is the same. For convenience sake, as the trial Judge has done, the plaintiff O.S.No.65 of 1969 will be hereafter referred to as plaintiff and the defendants in that suit the defendants. 2. Now the case of the plaintiff in brief is that, the suit temple which is known Pazhikkanjia Vinayagar temple at Sivakasi is a public temple. It was founded by Ayira Kasukara Chettiars community. It was managed and administered by the plaintiff and predecessors. The defendants and their predecessors were only Poosaries in the temple they had nothing to do with the ownership of the temple. The defendants filed an application before the Deputy Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department declaration that the suit temple is a private temple and that was ordered. The preferred before the Commissioner was dismissed. The plaintiff filed statutory suit Sec.70 of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act for setting aside that and to declare the suit temple as a public temple. 3. The defendants contended that it is a private temple belonging to the family defendants. They also contended that the suit temple was constructed by their Muthulinga Othuvar in his own land and the idol was consecrated as a family deity defendants and their ancestors have been in possession and management of the temple throughout and they are not mere Othuvars. 4. On consideration of the evidence adduced in the case the trial court held by its judgment dated 30.11.1971 that the suit temple is a private temple. 4. On consideration of the evidence adduced in the case the trial court held by its judgment dated 30.11.1971 that the suit temple is a private temple. Accordingly it decreed the suit O.S.No.124 of 1969 filed by the defendants and dismissed the suit O.S.No.65 of 1969 filed by the plaintiff; 5. The matter was taken on appeal to this Court and in that appeal, observing that the trial court has not considered properly some of the relevant evidence in the case set aside the said judgment of the trial court and remitted it back to the trial court for fresh disposal. 6. The trial court by its judgment dated 29.11.1980 in reversal of its earlier judgment, held that the suit temple is a public temple as pleaded by the plaintiff and not a private temple contended by the defendants. Accordingly it decreed the suit O.S.No.65 of 1969 and dismissed the suit O.S.No.124 of 1969. As against this, now the defendants have filed these two appeals. 7. Mr.W.CThiruvengadam, learned counsel appearing for the appellants-defendants would contend that the finding of the trial court is quite contrary to the evidence in the case. would lay much stress on Ex.82 filed by the defendants. This is a photo of a Silasasanam the year 1669. As per the said Silasasanam the temple has been built by Muthusamy Othuvar, the ancestor of the appellants. 8. It is not in dispute that there is such a Silasasanam in the temple. But however it argued for the plaintiffs that even ii this Silasasanam is a genuine one that alone will not prove that the temple is a private one. No doubt this Silasasanam would show that the temple has been built by Muthusamy Othuvar, but the question is whether he intended it be a private temple or public temple. In this connection it may be noted that in South India excepting Malabar, it is well establishes now by court decisions that the presumption is that temple is a public one and whoever claims the temple to be a private one he must have prove it. It has been so held by the Privy Council in Koman Nair v. Achuthan Nair, A.I.R. 1934P.C. 230: 67 M.LJ. 788: I.L.R. 58 Mod. 91, and by a Division Bench of this Court in Chidambares-wara Sivagami Ambigai Temple v. The Commissioner H.R. & C.E., Madras, (1966)1 M.LJ. 109 : A.I.R. 1966 Mad. It has been so held by the Privy Council in Koman Nair v. Achuthan Nair, A.I.R. 1934P.C. 230: 67 M.LJ. 788: I.L.R. 58 Mod. 91, and by a Division Bench of this Court in Chidambares-wara Sivagami Ambigai Temple v. The Commissioner H.R. & C.E., Madras, (1966)1 M.LJ. 109 : A.I.R. 1966 Mad. 99: 1.L.R. (1965)2 Mad. 404. 9. As against this the learned counsel for the defendants cited a decision of this Court Soundharathammal v. The Thiruchirapalli Mahasuruli Alaya Bakthargal Madya Sangam, (1977)1 M.LJ. 125 , wherein, while considering whether a Samathi is a public place of worship or private place of worship it is stated that before a temple or shrine or other holy place can be accepted and recognised as a place of public religious worship there must be evidence dedication of the same for the benefit of the Hindu Community or a section thereof being single Judge decision and the controversy is with regard to a Samathi and not a this decision will not help the plaintiff. 10. One important thing that has to be borne in mind is that admittedly the temple has built in a poramboke land. If the builder of the temple wanted it to be a private one unlikely that he would have built it in a poramboke land. Therefore the fact that the is in a poramboke land gives an indication that quite possibly the builder wanted to dedicate the temple to the public. 11. Mr.Thiruvengadam would however rely on a decision E.Subbiah Pillai and another v. The Commissioner H.R. & C.E. (Admn.) Dept, Madras, L.W. 94, wherein it has been held that only because the temple is situated on a Natham cannot be called a public temple. There is vast difference between Natham and a poramboke land. In that case the temple was built not only adjacent to the plaintiffs’ house but plaintiffs had access and entrance to the temple directly from their house. Further in our too just for the reason the temple is built on a poramboke land we do not hold that public temple, but, as stated above, this is a strong circumstance probabilising that it be the intention of the builder that the temple was to be a public temple. 12. Further in our too just for the reason the temple is built on a poramboke land we do not hold that public temple, but, as stated above, this is a strong circumstance probabilising that it be the intention of the builder that the temple was to be a public temple. 12. Then even if at the time of building of the temple the builder had no intention that public should worship there, it could be that in the course of time the temple had become public one by uninterrupted user by the Public. In a Full Bench decision in Subramania and others v. Pujari Lakshmana Goundan and another, A.I.R. 1920 Mad.42: 1919 899, a temple built on a private land and exclusively managed by the founder and his was by inference from the acts of the founder and his family members, held that the had been dedicated to the public. 13. The next document the appellants would rely on is Ex.832 which is called Cadjan written by one Muthusamy Udayar on 11.1.1965. Therein it is written that, From this argued that as per Ex.832 the suit temple has been established by the above Muthusamy Othuvar. That may be so, but this document does not show that the temple a private temple. It reads that the writer had been doing Pooja and service to the deity. 14. The next evidence for the appellants is the oral testimony of first defendant as and D.Ws.2 and 3. The evidence of first defendant (D.W.I) is an interested one. Therefore the only evidence that can be said to be independent is of D.Ws.2 and 3 who would say the public do not worship in the temple. 15. As against this on the side of the plaintiff, Mr.T.R.Srinivasaraghavan, learned counsel the respondent-plaintiff would submit that the defendants’ family had been the poosaries the temple and they were not the owners. In support of their case the plaintiff would rely on a grant of maniam Ex.A-14, dated 9.10.1929 by the Government of Rs.5 and annas only for the purpose of pooja. This grant is in favour of the temple and not in favour individual, not to speak of any of the defendants’ ancestors. From this it is submitted plaintiff that the Government believed the temple to be or treated it as a public temple. 16. This grant is in favour of the temple and not in favour individual, not to speak of any of the defendants’ ancestors. From this it is submitted plaintiff that the Government believed the temple to be or treated it as a public temple. 16. However it is argued on the side of the defendants that only because the Government has granted maniam it cannot be said to be a public temple since there is nothing, preventing the Government granting maniam to a private temple also. In this connection learned counsel would rely on a Division Bench ruling of this Court in Thanuma-laya Perumal Mudaliar and others v. The Commissioner H.R. & C.E. (Admn.) Department, Madras others, (1975)2M.LJ. 310, wherein it is stated that, “The fact that at one particular point time a small extent of two acres and odd was additionally granted to the deity by strangers cannot alter the nature of the initial grant or the character of the institution from private one to a public one.” But in the instant case there is no question of any strangers granting anything to the deity but it is the Government that has granted the manibam. Therefore the said decision would not help the defendants. I agree with the trial court the grant of maniam by the Government is one of the strong circumstances that would show that the suit temple could be a public one. 17. Sivakasi Municipality also has treated the suit temple as a public temple inasmuch as not in dispute that it has exempted the suit temple from payment of tax. As per Ex.A municipality has levied tax on the properties of the temple and the owner of the property been described as Pazhikkanjia Vinayagar temple, and Ex.B-21 is a receipt for payment tax for the properties of the temple and there too the owner has been described Pazhikkanjia Vinayagar temple. 18. Exs.A-1 to A-9 are statements recorded by the Revenue Inspector in connection with said temple, given by the residents of Sivakasi and some of them are of 1896 and the are of 1897. A reading of these documents would show that the residents have complained about the poosari in the temple i.e., Muthusamy Othuvar stating that he was not properly doing poojas and was misusing the funds of the temple properties. A reading of these documents would show that the residents have complained about the poosari in the temple i.e., Muthusamy Othuvar stating that he was not properly doing poojas and was misusing the funds of the temple properties. Therein the residents have stated clearly that the temple had been built by the people of Chettiar community now Muthusamy Othuvar was doing pooja in the temple but he was not doing pooja properly. The genuineness of these documents is not in dispute and these being ancient documents they have great evidentiary value. 19. Ex.B-14 is an order dated 31.8.1890 issued by the Tahsildar upon a complaint made one Arunachalam Chettiar against Muthusamy Othuvar in connection with the temple properties, and in that order the Tahsildar has stated that it appeared that Muthusamy Othuvar had not appropriated to himself any of the temple properties and therefore complaint need not be pursued further. This is an indication that it did not appear then Muthusamy Othuvar claimed the suit temple as his family temple. 20. Ex.A-26 is a registration copy of a mortgage deed executed by one Vellayan Asari others in favour of one Vadivel Nadar on 20.2.1874. Therein the boundary of the property mortgaged has been stated as It is not in dispute that this temple mentioned boundary is the suit temple. Therefore as per the mortgage deed Ex.A-26 which is early as of the year 1874 the suit temple has been stated to be belonging to them. 21. Ex.B-8, dated 28.7.1917 is a partition deed among the then members of the defendants family. Therein they have referred to the private properties and poosari right in temple. No mention of the temple or temple properties has been made as their property. This only shows that according to the members of the defendants’ family temple was not a private property belonging to their family. 22. Ex.A-11 is a registered copy of sale deed dated 6.1.1919 executed by Mariappa favour of one Anaiappa Pillai for Rs.600. It is a sale deed by one of the ancestors defendants. Therein he has been described ‘as So the defendants has been described as one who did service in the temple. To this effect is Ex.A-12 also is a cancellation deed cancelling Ex.A-11. If really the said defendant’s ancestor owner of the temple he would not have been described as a ‘panividaidhar’. Therein he has been described ‘as So the defendants has been described as one who did service in the temple. To this effect is Ex.A-12 also is a cancellation deed cancelling Ex.A-11. If really the said defendant’s ancestor owner of the temple he would not have been described as a ‘panividaidhar’. This description ‘panividaidhar’ is incompatible with the temple being a private one belonging defendants’ family. 23. Ex.A-15 is a copy of the petition given by the first defendant to the Sivakasi Commissioner on 22.7. 1937. Therein, as pointed out by the trial court, the first defendant has called himself as ‘ Huqdar ’ of the suit temple. Huqdar means manager, and temple has not been referred to as the private temple of the defendants ’ family. This is a copy of petition sent by the first defendant complaining against his uncle (paternal) Shanmugham Pillai in respect of the temple properties. Therein he has clearly mentioned the temple properties are endowed properties ( ), and that himself or Shanmugham Pillai has no right whatsoever in it. In one place in it he calls himself as the Inamdar temple. These recitals conclusively, by way of admission, prove that the suit temple properties belong to the public and not to the family of the defendants. In my view, face of this document Ex.A-15, it is not at all open to the defendants to raise a plea suit temple is a private temple and not a public temple. 24. The first defendant himself as D.W.1 has categorically admitted that people communities go to the temple. He would also say that he used to do pooja daily two and there will be poojas on festival days, and there will be pooja on the Vinayaga Chadhurthi day. In the face of this evidence of the first defendant himself the evidence of D.Ws.2 that the public does not go to the suit temple to worship has to be rejected as untrue. 25. The plaintiff besides himself as P.W.I has examined P.Ws.2 to 9. All of them uniformly deposed that the suit temple is a public temple and the public go there worship without any interruption, and no permission to worship in the temple is needed anybody. This evidence of P.Ws. has not been seriously challenged in the cross examination. 26. 25. The plaintiff besides himself as P.W.I has examined P.Ws.2 to 9. All of them uniformly deposed that the suit temple is a public temple and the public go there worship without any interruption, and no permission to worship in the temple is needed anybody. This evidence of P.Ws. has not been seriously challenged in the cross examination. 26. Considering the circumstances discussed above, I am clearly of the view that temple is a public temple and not a private temple as decided by the trial court. 27. It is next argued by the learned counsel for the appellants-defendants that plaintiffs suit i.e., O.S.No.65 of 1969 eighth defendant is the Commissioner, Hindu and Charitable Endowments, Madras and to him no notice under Sec.80, C.P.C. has given and for this reason the suit is incompetent and is liable to be dismissed. connection the learned counsel cited a Division Bench decision of this Court in The Officer, Arulmigu Ranganathaswami Devasthanam, Srirangam v. His Holiness Satagopa Sri Vedantha Desika Yathindra Maha Desigan, (1989)2 M.L.J. 54 . But in same judgment in paragraph 13 it has been clearly held that the point regarding notice Sec.80, C.P.C can be raised by the Government or Public Officer against whom the filed and not by a third party. Therefore this contention of the learned counsel has no. 28. The result is, both the appeals are liable to be dismissed. I order accordingly. the appeals the appellants shall pay costs to the respondents. Appeals dismissed.