Judgment :- Appeal against the judgment and decree made in O.S. No. 227 of 1980, on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Vellore, dated 24.12.1982. 2. Defendant is the appellant. 3. Plaintiff filed the suit for a declaration and injunction making the following averments Plaintiff is Srimath Gnaniyar Madalayam, represented by its Madathipathi through his Power of Attorney. Plaintiff Madam is known as Srimath Gnaniyar Madalayam and Madathipathi has got his peedam in South Arcot in Tirupapaliyoor. Said Peedam was started in 17th century by the previous Madathipathis and the Founder is known as Arumugha Maignana Swamigal. Present Madathipathi is 7th in succession and he is known as Sivashanmugha Arumugha Meignana Sivachariar Swamigal. Plaintiff Madam has got its branches a t Arani, Tirukovilur, Virudhachalam, Sivakundram, Tirupapaliyoor, Tiruvanamalai and other places. There are Madams in all these places belonging to the plaintiff Madam. In all these Madams there is a temple of Subramania Swamigal, who is called as Upasanamoorthy. Subramania Swamy is the Upasanamurthy or the main deity in the temple. Even in the idol of Subramania Swamy ‘Sivalingam’ is inscribed which is the symbol of the plaintiffs Madam. The plaintiff Madam started its branch in 1799 at Arani in North Arcot District. By spending funds of the Madam, Madathipathi purchased lands from private persons and put up Madam and temple inside it, where the main deity Subramania Swami is installed along with his consorts Valli and Deivanai. Attached to the temple, there is a flower garden or nandavanam and the temple is situated inside the Madam. There is access to the temple straight from the Madam and poojas are performed every day with flowers taken from Nandavanam situated in the Madam. Madathipathi was administrating the temple from its inception and the Madam has also purchased two houses in Arani and from the rent collected from those houses, the temple is maintained. Entire expenses of temple and the Madam is spent out of the expenses of the Madam. Madam and the temple were established for the sole benefit of the Madathipathi and his followers or Sishyas. The temple is not a public temple coming under the jurisdiction of the defendant Hindu Religious and Charitable Endownment Board. Madathipathi use to visit all the branches once in a year or according to his convenience and so also Madathipathi used to visit the plaintiff Madam at least once in a year. The temple is not a public temple coming under the jurisdiction of the defendant Hindu Religious and Charitable Endownment Board. Madathipathi use to visit all the branches once in a year or according to his convenience and so also Madathipathi used to visit the plaintiff Madam at least once in a year. Madathipathi is the Administrator and the Trustee of the suit temple. Present Madathipathi and his predecessors were all administering the Madam and temple as private properties and poojas used to be performed by Madathipathi and his followers and the temple was aalso mainly constructed for the use of the Madathipathi and his disciples. Public have no right of entry but they are allowed by the authorities of the Madam to come and offer worship. Suit temple is a private temple and the defendant has no jurisdiction to interfere in the administration of the said temple. In a previous suit in O.S. No. 50 of 1930 filed before the Subordinate Judge, Vellore, it has been decided that suit temple is a private temple belonging to Madalayam. A document dated 2.8.1973 filed in the said suit also would show that the suit temple and Madam was constructed even in 1799 and it is recognised as a private temple even as early as 1873. Documents have been filed before the defendant to prove that the suit temple is a private temple belonging to Madathipathi and is not a public temple. In the Main entrance to the temple, there is only an arch and there is no Gopuram and there is no car for the temple and no Bramorchavam has been conducted in the temple. In Moolasthanam there is an idol of Madathipathi, who was the “founder of the Madam and the temple, and this also would show that it can never be treated as a public temple. The Inspector attached to the Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowment Board submitted a report to the defendant stating that the suit temple is a public temple and he requested the Board to levy contribution and also to submit accounts for audit. Therefore, the plaintiff Madam filed O.S. No. 61 of 1977 before the Asst. Commissioner of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Board praying for a declaration that the suit temple is a private temple and not a public temple. Therefore, the plaintiff Madam filed O.S. No. 61 of 1977 before the Asst. Commissioner of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Board praying for a declaration that the suit temple is a private temple and not a public temple. Evidence has been adduced to prove the contention of the plaintiff but without properly considering the evidence, the Assistant Commissioner on the basis of the Report of the Inspector of the Board concluded that suit temple is a public temple. As against this order passed by the Assistant Commissioner, the plaintiff preferred Appeal A.P. No. 156 of 1978 before the Commissioner, Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowment Board but the latter also has dismissed the appeal confirming the order of the Assistant Commissioner. The order was passed on 27.2.1980. The defendant is thereafter taking steps to levy contribution on the plaintiffs Madam. Therefore, the plaintiff is constrained to file this suit for setting aside the order passed by the Commissioner of the Board holding that the suit temple is a public temple and for a declaration that the suit temple is a private temple belonging to Madam and also a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the administration of the plaintiffs Madam and temple. 4. Defendant filed a written statement contesting the claims of the plaintiff by contending that the plaintiff has to prove all the averments made in the plaint, that it is not true to say that the plaint property and Madam was established by a predecessor of the present Madathipathi, that the defendant does not admit that the land for putting up the temple was purchased from the funds of the Madam, that this defendant also denies that two buildings in Arani have been purchased by the Madam and rents collected therein are utilised for the maintenance of the temple, that it is not true to say that the suit temple is a private temple intended mainly for Madathipathi to worship, that apart from Madathipathi and his followers, Public also have free access the temple and offer worship to the deity, that the public are doing so as a matter of right, that Bramorchavam is being celebrated in the temple, that festivals are being carried on and that therefore the suit temple is only a public temple and that the plaintiff has come forward with untrue allegations and that therefore the suit may be dismissed. 5. 5. On the above pleadings, the lower court has framed issues as to whether the suit temple is a private temple as contended by the plaintiff and whether the order dated 27.2.1980 passed by the Commissioner, Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowment Board, is liable to be set aside and with regard to reliefs. Plaintiffs examined P.W.I the Power of Attorney of the Madathipathi, besides two other witnesses P.Ws.2 & 3. Plaintiff has filed Ex. A-1 to A-6 documents. Defendant examined D.Ws.1 to 4 and has filed Exs. B-1 to B-6 documents. 6. On consideration of the evidence oral and documentary, learned Subordinate Judge held that the suit temple is a private temple situated in the Plaintiffs Madam at Arani, that the suit temple was constructed from and out of the funds of the Madam and the temple was mainly intended for Madathipathi and his followers for offering poojas and worship and therefore decreed the suit after setting aside the order passed by the Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Board. 7. Aggrieved at the said findings and the decree granted by the learned Subordinate Judge, the defendant has come with this Appeal. 8. The point for consideration in this appeal are: (1) Whether the suit temple is a private temple belonging to the plaintiff madam and not a public temple? And (2) Whether the order dated 27.2.1980 passed by the defendant Board is liable to be set aside? 9. The points:— Suit has been filed by Madathipathi of Srimath Gnanivar Madam, which is having its Peedam at Tirupapuliyoor in Cucldalore in North Arcot District. Madam is having its own branches and one of the branches is situated in Arani in North Arcot District about which the present dispute has arisen. The plaintiff has adduced sufficient evidence to show that suit Madam and the temple were all established in the lands purchased for the Madam by about 1799. It is not as if that the origin of the disputed temple is shrouded in any mystery thereby raising a presumption that the temple is a public temple. There is definite evidence to show that the temple was constructed about 200 years ago and D.W.I the Inspector has also stated in his report that the temple was constructed about 200 years ago even though he would deny knowledge about the person who constructed the temple whether Madam provided funds for the said construction. There is definite evidence to show that the temple was constructed about 200 years ago and D.W.I the Inspector has also stated in his report that the temple was constructed about 200 years ago even though he would deny knowledge about the person who constructed the temple whether Madam provided funds for the said construction. The plaintiff has examined the Manager of the Madam, who is the Power of Attorney of the Madathipathi through whom Ex. A-2 unregistered sale deed has been marked which is dated 4.8.1799. Even though an attempt was made on behalf of the defendant to contend that the suit temple is situated in a poramboke land, the Inspector himself is not in a position to deny that the suit temple is situated only on the land which is the subject matter of the sale deed of the year 1799. Consideration for taking up the sale deed proceeded from Madathipathi and only after purchase of the said land, Madam has been constructed along with which a temple was constructed for Subramaniya Swamy. The temple has an arch in the main entrance wherein the Inspector himself has found an inscription stating that it is the temple of Subramanya Swamy of Srimath Gnaniyar Madam. In Ex. A-2 the extent of the property is not specified in terms of acres or cents, But extensive lands are conveyed with reference to four boundaries. D.W.I Inspector also in the course of his cross-examination admitted that he does not know whether the suit temple is situated only in the land conveyed or purchased under Ex. A-2. Boundaries mentioned in Ex. A-2 tally with the boundaries of the present Madam and its temple. Moreover the plaintiff has also produced ExA-6 settlement. Patta given in the name of the Madam by the Estate Officer after abolition of Minor Inams in 1963, Ex. A-6 is dated 28.11.1980 and for the land in which temple is situated Settlement Patta has been given in favour of Madathipathi. It is significant to note that the land is not classified as poramboke which is usually done in case where ancient and public temples are situated. Grant of patta would show that the temple has been constructed on private patta land and patta was also issued in the name of Madathipathi and not in the name of deity of the temple. Grant of patta would show that the temple has been constructed on private patta land and patta was also issued in the name of Madathipathi and not in the name of deity of the temple. Therefore, there is abundant evidence to show that by about 200 years ago, lands were purchased by Madathipathi, and a temple and Madam were constructed over the lands and the temple was mainly intended for Madathipathi and his followers to offer worship and to perform poojas for the main deity, namely Sri Subramania Swamy. The fact that Patta has been issued in the name of Madathipathi and that funds have been provided by Madathipathi for purchase of lands and also construction of Madam all would go to show that temple was mainly intended for the benefit of Madathipathi and his followers and anyhow there is no dedication to the public at large. 10. It is contended on behalf of the defendant that the temple is being maintained by the offerings made by the worsliipers and the public had free access to the temple as a matter of right. Even though the Inspector D.W.I in his report had attempted to say that an Undiyal is placed in the temple and money is collected from the public, but was made to admit in the cross-examination that he cannot deny that there is no Undiyal and he would only state that at the time of his alleged inspection or visit to the temple some few months prior to the suit he found an article like Undiyal which according to him, has been temporarily installed in the temple. Commissioners Report Ex. C-1 also positively states that there is no Undiyal and people offering worship are not putting any money in the Undiyal. Similarly there is no evidence to show that for offering various poojas by public a fee or amount is collected as Archana fee. Even though the defendant would contend that Brahmorchavam was celebrated in the temple there is no evidence in support of the claim and the Inspector also in his evidence admitted that there is no temple car as alleged by him in his report. Even though the Inspector would state that on important days of festival main deity is taken around the town, but he was not able to produce any pamphlet or news item in support of his claim. Even though the Inspector would state that on important days of festival main deity is taken around the town, but he was not able to produce any pamphlet or news item in support of his claim. Anyhow D.W.I the Inspector and other witnesses examined on the side of the defendant themselves do not dispute that temple was started only about 200 years prior to the suit and the temple is situated in a place purchased by Madathipathi. 11. The plaintiff and other witnesses have positively stated that the sale deed was taken in the name of Madathipathi and not in the name of deity, that the construction was done only from and out of the funds provided by the Madam having its Peedam at Tirupapuliyooi in Cuddalore and just like the plaintiff Madam and temple, there are another Madams and temples situated in various places in the Northern districts of Tamil Nadu which are all branches of Main Madam at Tirupapuliyoor in Cuddalore. Origin of the temple is known and the founder is known and the funds were provided by Madam has been also established by credible evidenced Evidence of witnesses examined on the side of the Plaintiff, Commissioners Report and even the Report of the Inspector attached to Hindu Religious and Charitabje Endowment Board would show that in the Sanctum Sanctorum | itself besides the main deity, namely Sri Subramaniya Swamy, there is an Idol of the Founder Madathipathi and this also would belie the case of the defendant that it is a public temple. If the temple has been built and dedicated for the worship of the Hindus in general, there is no possibility of an Idol of the founder Madathipathi finding a place in the Sanctum Sanctorum of the temple, namely ‘Garbagraham’. The Inspector has also admitted in his report and evidence that in all the articles used in the temple for performing i poojas symbol ‘Sivalingam’ is inscribed and even the main idol of Sri Subramanya Swamy bears the Sivalingam mark. Plaintiff and others have also stated that Madathipathi and the followers of the plaintiff Madam have got peculiar identification for themselves in as much as they are wearing Sivalingam in their body and they mainly worship Sivalingam. Plaintiff and others have also stated that Madathipathi and the followers of the plaintiff Madam have got peculiar identification for themselves in as much as they are wearing Sivalingam in their body and they mainly worship Sivalingam. This symbol found in all the articles and also on the main deity would show that all the articles and idol were mainly intended to be worshipped by Madathipathi and his followers. This does not mean that that there was any prohibition on the part of the authorities of the Madam prohibiting Hindus coming and offering worshipin the temple. Public come and offer worship not as a matter of right but only because of the sufferance of the Madathipathi and the authorities under him. 12. There is also evidence to show that daily poojas are performed by a Brahmin priest who is paid by Madam. It is nobodys case that Archagar or Poojari receives remuneration from the people offering worship or by way of public donation or from any body of persons. Administration of the temple has always vested with the plaintiffs Madathipathi and this also becomes apparent on a reading of Ex. A-4 judgment of the Subordinate Judge, Vellore in Q.S. No. 50 of 1930. In fact the said litigation arose because of the dispute or rival claims made by some Brahmin priests who have been appointed to perform poojas and ceremonies. It seems those persons claimed independent right and they even questioned the title of the Madathipathi and Madam. They even claimed right of Trusteeship not by way of any appointment but by adverse possession. A reading of Ex. A-4 judgment would show that even though these tall claims were made by Brahmin priests it has been finally established that all those persons were performing certain functions in the temple and Madam only as an agent of the madathipathi and they had no independent right or title to any office. Even those persons admitted during the trial of the said suit that they were paid remuneration for their services only by Madam. So, even as early as 1930 when there was no controversy the plaintiff Madam has asserted its right, title and possession of the suit temple and Madam as against poojaries and all their claims were upheld and the judgment also would make it very clear that the suit temple is only a private temple and not a public temple. So, even as early as 1930 when there was no controversy the plaintiff Madam has asserted its right, title and possession of the suit temple and Madam as against poojaries and all their claims were upheld and the judgment also would make it very clear that the suit temple is only a private temple and not a public temple. Even those defendants, namely Brahmin priests did not contend in that suit that madam was established or temple was constructed from out of the funds provided by way of public donation. Therefore, as early as 1930 it has been proved by the plaintiff that suit temple exclusively belongs to the plaintiff Madam and has been constructed and administered mainly for the benefits of the madathipathi and his followers or sishyas. 13. Besides, an idol of the Founder Madathipathi of the Madam is found in the main sanctum sanctorum. The Inspector attached to the Board also found a Samadhi immediately behind the temple wherein one of the Madathipathi has attained Mukthi. Presence of Samadhi inside in the temple premises and the situation of the Madam as part of the temple would all go to show that the temple belongs to Madam and it is not a public temple where the general public can have access to the temple for the purpose of offering worship as a matter of right. 14. There is also a reading room which is established by the Madam and forms part of the temple. In the temple itself there is one room reserved for Madathipathi whenever he chooses to visit the temple and there is a kitchen and a place for bathing. This is a further indication that the temple was intended and dedicated only for the benefit of the founders and their successors, namely Madathipathis of the plaintiff Madam. Absolutely there is no evidence whatsoever that at any time the temple was dedicated to the public. I have already stated that the temple has been constructed by Madam for which they have purchased lands. Thereafter Madam and temple have been constructed and for all these 200 years the same has been administered by the Madathipajhi through his officers or agents and this is also maintained from and out of the funds provided by Madathipathi. I have already stated that the temple has been constructed by Madam for which they have purchased lands. Thereafter Madam and temple have been constructed and for all these 200 years the same has been administered by the Madathipajhi through his officers or agents and this is also maintained from and out of the funds provided by Madathipathi. The Commissioner of Hindu Religious & Charitable Board seems to have been influenced by the fact that the main idol of Sri Subramanya Swamy used to be taken around the city in Oorvalam and festivals are being celebrated in large scale and public have access to the temple for free worship as a matter of right. For all these propositions, the Commissioner has mainly depended upon the evidence of D.W.I., the Inspector. But in cross-examination it has been elicited that the temple and Madam were founded even 200 years prior to the suit, that the land belongs to Madalayam wherein the temple is siluated and I Patta is also in the name of madathipathi and not In the name of the deity: If at the time of settlement enquiry, temple has been treated as a public temple, Patta would have been granted in the name of deity but ownership of the land over which temple has been constructed and the temple itself was admitted to, belonged to plaintiff Madathipathi. All the articles kept inside the temple bear the inscription of Sivalingam. It is seen from the Inspectors Report that while constructing the main Mandapam some of the stones on the top of the roof are found to contain names of private persons, who see m to have donated those stones for the construction of the temple. It is the evidence of the plaintiff that in and around the village Arani, there are about 100 families who owe allegiance to the Madathipathi and all of them have obtained ‘Dheetchai’ at the hands of madathipathi. Therefore, there is no wonder and nothing surprising to find some of the followers of Madathipathi have also chosen to donate few stone pillars to be made use for the construction of the temple. But this does not in any way show “that the temple is a public temple or was constructed from out of the donations collected from the public. But this does not in any way show “that the temple is a public temple or was constructed from out of the donations collected from the public. There is an ancient sale deed in the form of Madathipathi and patta standing in the name of Madathipathi and all the articles found inside the temple bears the inscription of Sivalingam. The administration of the temple has been exclusively done by the agent of the Madathipathi and none from the public have ever taken part or have been put in charge of the administration of the temple at any time in the past. The attempt made by some of Brahmin priests inT930 to claim rights of Administration claiming Trusteeship by adverse possession has been also negatived in Ex. A-4 suit. 15. Apart from these records, the plaintiff has also examined P.Ws.2 & 3 who arc residents of the same town and who are aged people. There is absolutely nothing to show that these persons are beneficiaries of the Madam or Madathipathi or that they have got any vested interest in supporting the case of the plaintiff. They also appear to be respectable old persons who naturally have knowledge about the origin of the temple and administration in the past in view of their old age. Entire mischief seems to have arisen after D.W.I Inspector submitted his report making wide allegations as if the suit temple is a public temple. But all those claims have been disproved by the admissions made by themselves in cross-examination or by the records produced and proved on the side of the plaintiff. 16. Distinction between a private temple and a public temple has been the subject matter of number of decisions of our own High Court. In the Commissioner for Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments, Madras v. A.P.S. Sethurama Pillai and others (1960 (1) M.L J.157 = 73 L.W. 32) Ramachandra Iyer, J. (as he then was) speaking for the Bench has held as follows:— The question then to be considered is whether the temple is one that would come within Section 9 (12) of the Act II of 1927. It may be stated, private temples are rare in this part of the Country. That does not however, mean that there could be no private temples. Courts have frequently recognised the existence of private temples in this State. It may be stated, private temples are rare in this part of the Country. That does not however, mean that there could be no private temples. Courts have frequently recognised the existence of private temples in this State. The decision whether a temple is a public one or private depends on the evidence in the case. In Devanantham v. Muralidar and others (1957 (1) M.L J. (S.C.) 28) the Supreme Court laid down the test for deciding whether a particular temple was public or private. They held that the distinction between a private and a public trust was that, whereas in the former the beneficiaries were specific individuals, in the latter they were the general public or class thereof. It was further held that the true beneficiaries of a religious endowment were the worshipers, and the test to decide whether an endowment was public or private was to ascertain whether it was the intention of the founder that specified individuals were to have the right of worship at the shrine or the general public or any section thereof. The main characteristic of a public temple is that it is intended for the use of the public or a section thereof. On the other hand private temples are intended for the worship by the members of the family of the donor exclusively. In the case of a public temple, the public would be entitled to worship therein as a matter of right, while in the case of a private temple such worship by persons other than the founders family would be by the sufferance of the latter. The mere fact that outsiders are allowed to worship in a temple cannot necessarily mean that the temple was dedicated to the public, as no Hindu will ever prohibit strangers from offering worship to the deity enshrined in his private temple. In all such cases worship by out siders is referable to the leave and licence granted by the owner and cannot be indicative of any dedication to the public.” 17. In the Bihar State Board of Religious Trust (Patna) v. Mahanth Sri Biseshwarias (A.I.R. 1971 S.C. 2057 = 85 L.W. 19. In all such cases worship by out siders is referable to the leave and licence granted by the owner and cannot be indicative of any dedication to the public.” 17. In the Bihar State Board of Religious Trust (Patna) v. Mahanth Sri Biseshwarias (A.I.R. 1971 S.C. 2057 = 85 L.W. 19. S.N.) the Supreme Court has observed as follows:— “Properties of the temple being thus admittedly in the possession of the mahants ever since the time of Gaibi Ramdasi the onus of the proof that the respondent-mahant held them on trust for public purposes of a religious or charitable character was clearly on the appellant - Board who alleged that it was so”. Evidence that the mahants used to celebrate Hindu festivals when members of the public used to attend the temple and give offerings and that the public were admitted to the temple for darshan or worship is also not indicative of the temple being one for the benefit of the public. The celebration of festivals is, according to Hindu belief, part and parcel of the puja of the deity. Such festivals are celebrated in family and other private temples also. The fact that members of the public used to come to t he temple without any hindrance also does not necessarily mean that the temple is a public temple, for members of the public to attend private temples.” Their Lordships approvingly quoted an earlier ruling of the Privy Council made in Babu Bhagvan Din v. Gir Har Saroop (AIR 1940 PC 7 = 51 L.W. 5) wherein it was observed as follows:— “Dedication to the public is not to be readily inferred when it is known that the temple property was acquired by grant to an individual or family. Such an inference, if made from the fact of user by the public is hazardous, since it would not in general be consonant with Hindu sentiments or practice that worshipers should be turned away; and, as worship generally implies offerings of some kind, it is not to be expected that the managers of a private temples should in all circumstances desire to discourage popularity.” The Supreme Court has further observed as follows:— “A religious mutt in northern India is usually known as asthal, a monastic institution founded for the maintenance and spread of a particular sampradaya or cult. The distinction between dedication to a temple and a mutt is that in the former case it is to a particular deity, while in the latter, it is to a superior or a mahant.” That was a case where on the available evidence that High Court came to the conclusion that the temple was constructed by a particular Swamiji and it was he who installed deities therein. Said Swamiji was succeeded to the mahantship by his Chela and thereafter succession to the mahantship had been from guru to chela. Reigning mahant appointing or nominating his successor from amongst his chelas and the members of the public at no time had raised any voice in the nomination. Evidence further shows that the properties always have been recorded in the names of the mahants as proprietors and not in the name of - the deities in the D Registers, Khewats and Khatians. The evidence further shows that the mahants have been in possession and management of the asthal and the properties all throughout. It was further seen that mahants acquired properties from time to time in their own names as proprietors and never in the name of the deities or the asthal, without any objection at any time from any one and dealt with some of them through deeds of sales, mortgages, leases, etc. Considering all these aspects, the Supreme Court confirmed the decision of the High Court that it is only a private temple and not a public temple. 18. In Ram Chandra Mishra v. Bihar State Board of Religious Trusts (AIR 1982 Patna 59) the Bench of Bihar High Court held that in order to ascertain as to whether a trust is a public or private one, the Court should infer that the trust is a private one if the following conditions are fulfilled: (1) the beneficiaries are ascertained individuals, (ii) the grant has been made in favour of an individual and not in favour of a deity, (iii) the temple is situated within the campus of the residence, (iv) the revenue records or entries in the survey records suggest the land coming in possession of an individual person and not in the name of a deity. It was held that in the following cases, an inference can be drawn that the temple along with the properties attached to it is a public trust: (i) the public visit the temple as a matter of right, (ii) the endowment is in the name of the deity and the beneficiaries are uncertain individuals or the public, (iii) the management is made through the agency of the public or the accounts of the temple are being scrutinized by the public on the basis of the dedication deed. It was held in that case that merely because the festivals are celebrated, it does not mean that the temple is a public trust. It was also stated that merely because public are freely admitted in the temple, the Court should not readily infer therefrom dedication to the public. 19. In Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Board v. V.D. Deivanai Ammal ( 1953 (2) M.L.J. 688 = 66 L.W. 1020) Venkatarama Iyer, J, has observed as follows: — “It must be noted that there is no deed of dedication and as observed by the Privy Council, it is essential that it should be clearly proved that the institution was dedicated to the public In the case of in old temple, such dedication might be presumed from long user by the public as of right.” But, in this case the temple was built up in the year 1990 and in the absence of deed of dedication it is difficult to hold that there has been dedication to the public. 20. To sum up, so far as the present suit temple is concerned it has been proved that the land was purchased by the Madathipathi in his own name over which subsequently the suit temple was constructed which forms part of the Madam and the entire funds for construction also proceeded from the Madam only. The temple was constructed for the main object of providing a place for worship for Madathipathi and his followers alone. All the articles used in the temple belong to Madam. The main idol itself bears the special characteristic emblem of the Madam, namely, Sivalingam. In the Sanctum Sanctorum in the immediate presence of the main deity Sri Subramanya Swamy, there is an idol of the Founder Madathipathi. All the articles used in the temple belong to Madam. The main idol itself bears the special characteristic emblem of the Madam, namely, Sivalingam. In the Sanctum Sanctorum in the immediate presence of the main deity Sri Subramanya Swamy, there is an idol of the Founder Madathipathi. Just behind the temple and within the Madam premises there is a Samadhi of one of the previous Madathipathis Madam forms part of the temple and there is direct access from Madam to the temple. There is a reading room maintained by the Madam and Madathipathi used to stay in the same temple premises whenever he made visit to the temple. Madam throughout for last nearly about two centuries exclusively has been administering the temple through his personal agents and servants. Poojaries have been appointed by the Madam and their remunerations are met from out of the funds of the Madam. None from the public at any time had any say or voice in the matter of administering the temple and Madam. Funds of the Madam and temple were never subjected to any audit or inspection by any body representing the public at large. There has been previous litigation where the temple has been held as a private temple. The origin of the temple is very well known and there is ample evidence, both oral and documentary, which in no way helps the case put forth by the defendant. Therefore, considering all these aspects the learned Subordinate Judge has come to a right conclusion that the plaintiffs temple is a private temple being the property of the Madam and the Madathipathi, and it is not a public temple. Patta for the land over which the temple is constructed has been also granted in favour of the Madathipathi even at the time of settlement proceedings. I do not find any reason or justification to interfere with the findings or the conclusions arrived at by the learned Subordinate Judge. 21. In the result, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed, however, without costs.