Judgment :- The 1st defendant is the appellant. 2. The plaintiffs case is that his father Suppanna Gounder had installed the idol of Vinayagar for his exclusive worship and for the benefit of this family members in Vilaankurichi Village. The deity was called Ishata Siddi Vinayagar. The idol was installed and a small temple was built by the said Subbanna Gounder out of his own funds. The public have nothing to do with the temple. They have had no occasion to participate in the management or worship. There are no indications to show that it is a public temple. On 18.5.1959, the said Suppanna Gounder executed a settlement deed settling some properties for the upkeep of the temple. Subsequently, the settlement deed was revoked by a registered document dated 27.7.1967. The H.R. & C.E. Department began to appoint fit persons to take charge of the temple and the 2nd defendant (2nd respondent herein) was appointed as the fit person. After Subbanna Gounders death it was the plaintiff who was managing the suit temple and therefore, he filed O.A.No.168 of 1976 under Sec.63(a) of the H.R. & C.E. Act for a declaration that the suit temple is not a religious institution as defined under the Act. The Deputy Commissioner dismissed the application on 5.12.1967 on the ground that the temple is not a private one. Therefore, an appeal was filed to the Commissioner of H.R. & C.E. Department in A.P.No.106 of 1978. The appeal was dismissed on 31.3.1980. The suit was therefore filed under Sec.70 of the H.R. & C.E. Act. 3. The appellant herein as 1st defendant filed a written statement denying the averments in the plaint. According to the written statement, the public was worshipping at this temple. The settlement deed having been cancelled, no relevance can be placed thereupon to establish the plaintiffs case. The temple has all the characteristics of the public temple for e.g., Vimaanam, Balipeetam, etc. ‘Prasadam’ has been distributed to the children during festivals. The temple is not a private temple. The suit should be dismissed. 4. The learned I Additional Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore framed six issues, four documents were marked on the side of the plaintiff and two witnesses were examined. ‘Prasadam’ has been distributed to the children during festivals. The temple is not a private temple. The suit should be dismissed. 4. The learned I Additional Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore framed six issues, four documents were marked on the side of the plaintiff and two witnesses were examined. No document was marked on the side of the defendants, one witness were examined on the side of the defendants and the Commissioners report Exs.C-1 and C-2 were also marked before the Court. The learned Judge on a consideration of the oral and documentary evidence, decreed the suit, holding that the suit temple is a private one. Against that, the present appeal has been filed. The question that arises for consideration is, whether the suit temple is a private temple or whether it is a religious institution as defined in the H.R. & C.E. Act. 5. The learned Additional Government Pleader for the appellant submitted that the Court below had failed to take into account, the features that are existing in the suit temple which would go to show that it was a public temple. He submitted that the public has been worshipping at this temple as of right which is an indicator to show the public nature of the temple. It was also submitted on behalf of the appellant that the settlement deed Ex.A-1 under which properties were dedicated for the upkeep of the temple was subsequently cancelled by Ex.A-2 which would show that the suit temple was no longer a private temple. The existence of the Vimaanam and the Balipeetam were also sure signs of the temple being a public temple. According to the learned counsel, worship is done only by the public which would no be the case if it was a private temple and the intention of the respondent was only to grab the temple and misuse the Hundi collection etc. Two decisions were relied on by the learned counsel: Ramaswamy Naidu v. Commissioner, H.R. & C.E. Ramaswamy Naidu v. Commissioner, H.R. & C.E. Ramaswamy Naidu v. Commissioner, H.R. & C.E. (1974)2 MLJ. 133 and V.Mahadeva v. Commissioner, H.R. & C.E. V.Mahadeva v. Commissioner, H.R. & C.E. V.Mahadeva v. Commissioner, H.R. & C.E. (1956)1 MLJ. 309 : A.I.R. 1956 Mad. 522. (a) In Ramaswamy Naidu v. Commissioner, H.R. & C.E. Ramaswamy Naidu v. Commissioner, H.R. & C.E. Ramaswamy Naidu v. Commissioner, H.R. & C.E. (1974)2 MLJ. 133 and V.Mahadeva v. Commissioner, H.R. & C.E. V.Mahadeva v. Commissioner, H.R. & C.E. V.Mahadeva v. Commissioner, H.R. & C.E. (1956)1 MLJ. 309 : A.I.R. 1956 Mad. 522. (a) In Ramaswamy Naidu v. Commissioner, H.R. & C.E. Ramaswamy Naidu v. Commissioner, H.R. & C.E. Ramaswamy Naidu v. Commissioner, H.R. & C.E. (1974)2 MLJ. 133 the Division Bench of our High Court held: “Where it is clear that by long usage and acceptance the public were visiting a temple and performing poojas therein and participating in the processions and daily poojas, this by itself raises a very strong presumption against the private character of the temple. The existence of Moolasthanam, Mahamandapam, Prakaram, idols of chief and other deities, Uthasavamoorthis, daily poojas, special poojas and procession during Navarathiri festival, worship by the local public belonging to different communities are all factors which positively give the undoubted impression that the temple is a public one.” In that case, claim was made on behalf of the Erumaikra Naicker community that the temple was a private temple. There were several clinching factors which persuaded this Court to reject this claim. One was the existence of two Hundis in the temple in which liberal public contribution was received without objection by the members of the community and also the participation of the public as of right without any hindrance by the persons who claimed exclusive right and privilege to the temple. In addition, there was the existence of Moolasthanam, Mahamandapam, Prakaram etc. all of which gave the impression that the temple was a public temple. (b) In the other decision reported in V. Mahadeva v. Commissioner, H.R. & C. E. V. Mahadeva v. Commissioner, H.R. & C. E. V. Mahadeva v. Commissioner, H.R. & C. E. (1956)1 MLJ. 309 : A.I.R. 1956 Mad. 522 the Division Bench of this Court held as follows: “A temple which began as a private temple may, in course of time, become a public temple by express or implied dedication, the latter being proved by use of the temple by the Hindu Public as of right and without taking any permission from anyone. 309 : A.I.R. 1956 Mad. 522 the Division Bench of this Court held as follows: “A temple which began as a private temple may, in course of time, become a public temple by express or implied dedication, the latter being proved by use of the temple by the Hindu Public as of right and without taking any permission from anyone. Under Sec.9(12) no express dedication on a definite date need be proved, if it is prove beyond all doubt that the temple has been used as of right by the Hindu public as a place of religious worship without taking anybodys permission, leading to an irresistible inference of implied dedication. The law requires only the conditions stipulated under Sec.9(12) to be satisfied before a temple is declared to be a public temple. Once these conditions are satisfied, the temple will be a public temple under Sec.9(12), though those conditions must of course be strictly proved. There is nothing in our law preventing a thing which began as a private property becoming public property later on.” In that case, the claim was that the Vallabha Vinayagar temple in George town, Madras was a private temple. The Division Bench held, as seen from the extract above that even a private temple may in course of time, become a public one by express or implied dedication. The Division Bench rejected the claim that it was a private temple on the ground that the Hindu public used this as a place of worship s of right and offerings were received from the public and there was evidence that 1000 to 1500 people visited the temple everyday. It was therefore submitted that judgment of the Court below must be set aside since it was evident that the suit temple was a public one. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand submitted that one need to look no further from Exs.C-1 and C-2 which are the Commissioners Report which speak not only of the temple, but also its physical features in the surrounding places. It speaks of the private nature of the temple. No objection has been filed by the Department to this. Learned counsel submitted that even access to the temple was controlled only by the founder and his family and therefore, most certainly it cannot be a public temple. It speaks of the private nature of the temple. No objection has been filed by the Department to this. Learned counsel submitted that even access to the temple was controlled only by the founder and his family and therefore, most certainly it cannot be a public temple. The two essential factors necessary to establish public nature were absent in this case, namely public access as a matter of right and express dedication. There are no Hundis. Further, the Samadhi of the ancestor of the founder is situated very close to the temple which is also eloquent of the private nature of the temple. The learned counsel would explain the relevance of Ex.A-1 thus: “Ex.A-1 was originally executed to create a corpus to support the temple. It was marked to show the recitals of the deed which categorically speak of the intention of Subbanna Gounder to found a private temple“. Ex.A-2 no doubt revoked Ex.A-1, but the recitals of the said deed would show that the revocation would not in any way of detract from the private nature of the temple. It was revoked because the founder was satisfied that the temple would be maintained by the family members even without the aid of the property that was settled under Ex.A-1. According to the learned counsel, the authorities under the H.R. & C.E. Act had taken a myopic view of the case on hand and had not considered the evidence from a proper perspective. The learned counsel relied on the following decisions: (i) Radhakanta Deb v. Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments, Orissa A.I.R. 1981 S.C. 798 where the Supreme Court laid down the tests for deciding whether a temple was public or private: “The following tests may provide sufficient guidelines to determine on the facts of each case whether an endowment is of a private or of a public nature: (1) Where the origin of the endowment cannot be ascertained, the question whether the user of the temple by members of the public is as of right; (2) The fact that the control and management vests either in a large body or persons or in the members of the public and the founder does not retain any control over the management. Allied to this may be a circumstance where the evidence shows that there is provision for a scheme to be framed by associating the members of the public at large; (3) Where, however a document is available to prove the nature and origin of the endowment and the recitals of the document show that the control and management of the temple is retained with the founder of his descendants, and that extensive properties are dedicated for the purpose of the maintenance of the temple belonging to the founder himself, this will be a conclusive proof to show that the endownment was of a private nature; (4) Where the evidence shows that the founder of the endownment did not make any stipulation for offerings or contributions to be made by members of the public to the temple, this would be an important intrinsic circumstance to indicate the private nature of the endowment.” In that case, the Supreme Court held that factually while the members of the public were not debarred from entering the temple, they cannot worship in the temple as of right. There was nothing to show that any contribution was called for from the public and therefore, from the unimpeachable oral and documentary evidence, the Supreme Court held that private nature of the temple was clear. (ii) T.D.Gopalan v. Commissioner, H.R. & C.E. T.D.Gopalan v. Commissioner, H.R. & C.E. T.D.Gopalan v. Commissioner, H.R. & C.E. A.I.R. 1972 S.C. 1716 where it was held thus: “Held on a consideration of the entire evidence the decision of the D1strict Judge that the suit temple was private in character was correct and the High Court erred in holding that it was a public temple. The High Court did not attach sufficient importance to three matters which, in the present case, were of material consequence. The first was that the origin of the Mandapam had been proved to be private. The second was that its management had remained throughout in the members of the Thoguluva family. The third was the absence of any endowed property. There was no gopuram or Dwajasthamba nor a Nagara bell nor Hundial in the suit temple. The first was that the origin of the Mandapam had been proved to be private. The second was that its management had remained throughout in the members of the Thoguluva family. The third was the absence of any endowed property. There was no gopuram or Dwajasthamba nor a Nagara bell nor Hundial in the suit temple. Appeal No.334 of 1956, dated 4.4.1960 (Mad.) reversed.“ In that case, though the temple had some physical characteristics which belong to a public temple, and some outsiders came and worshipped at the temple, yet, the Supreme Court held that the temple was a private one since the origin was proved to be private. The management remained throughout with the members of the family, there was an absence of endowed property and there were no Gopuram, Dwajasthamba nor Hundial in the suit temple. (iii) Chennammal v. The Commissioner for Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (1973)2 MLJ. 442 , Muthammal was relied on in which it was held thus: “Before a temple can come within the scope of the definition in Sec.6(20) in Madras Act (XXII of 1959), two conditions must be cumulatively satisfied. One is it must be a place of public religious worship. Secondly, it must have been dedicated for the benefit of the Hindu community or any section thereof. Alternatively, it must have been used as of right as a place of public religious worship by the Hindu community or any section thereof. Unless both these conditions are jointly satisfied, a temple will not come within the scope of the definition contained in this Act. The law is well-settled that, when the origin of the temple is known as a private temple, then the clearest possible evidence is necessary for converting that temple into a public temple. 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. 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. 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 outsiders is referable to the leave and licence granted by the owner and cannot be indicative of any dedication to the public.” In this case the temple was the Pandurangaswami temple in Aruppukkottai. Several factors persuaded the Division Bench of this Court in this case to hold that the suit temple was intended to be a private one namely that the temple was under the lock and key of the plaintiff, the temple had been managed and intended to be managed by the founders family and that the expenses connected with the temples are met by nobody other than the members of the family. The fact that the passer by could enter the temple and worship there would not convert a private temple into a public one according to this case. (iv) In the case reported in The Commissioner for The Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments, Madras-34 and another v. Swamikeela Arasalwar Dharmam The Commissioner for The Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments, Madras-34 and another v. Swamikeela Arasalwar Dharmam The Commissioner for The Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments, Madras-34 and another v. Swamikeela Arasalwar Dharmam (1983)2 MLJ. 274 it was held thus: “Proof of user by the public, of the temple without interference and as of right would be cogent evidence that there has been a dedication in favour of the public. Such a proof is wanting in this case. It is true that Utsavams are being conducted and the deity being taken in procession and on such occasions, there will be participation of outsiders. But the mere fact festivals are being conducted and the deity is being taken in procession and at that time members of the general public participate in the functions are not sufficient by themselves to draw an inference that the temple has been dedicated to the public. Equally so the presence of physical features which are usually found in a public temple not of much significance, so long as the test of public religious worship as of right is not satisfied. Equally so the presence of physical features which are usually found in a public temple not of much significance, so long as the test of public religious worship as of right is not satisfied. There is a clear indication that the gramadars wanted to exclude the general public, other than themselves, from worshipping in the temple as of right. The mere fact that public is being allowed to participate in the festivals connected with the temple or allowed to worship in the temple could not persuade the Court to readily infer therefrom dedication to the public. The crucial test is that the Hindu public or any section thereof must be entitled to use the place as a place of public religious worship, and they must be doing it as of right and not as gratia from the persons in management. Hence, the plaintiff trust, its properties and the temple it built cannot come within the mischief of the Act.” The temple in this case was the Navaneethakrishnan Mandir at Madurai. Here also, the learned Judge relying on the fact that the temple was built for the worship of the gramadars and donations were obtained only from them, the absence of Dwsajasthambam and Hundial and also the absence of the right of worship by outsiders to come to the conclusion that the temple was a private one. (v) Then, the case reported in Thanumalayaperumal Mudaliar v. The Commissioner, H.R. & C.E. Thanumalayaperumal Mudaliar v. The Commissioner, H.R. & C.E. Thanumalayaperumal Mudaliar v. The Commissioner, H.R. & C.E. (1975)2 MLJ. 310 was relied on, where it was held thus: “No independent witness or member of the public has come to say that he was visiting the temple as of right and performing the Poojas pursuant thereto. The mere presence of the worshippers on certain occasions by itself is not conclusive to show that the generality of the public were having ingress into the temple as of right.” In this case again, the Division Bench of this Court held that there was no participation of the public in the worship. There was no proof to show public ingress as a matter of right and also the temple was established from private funds and arrived at the conclusion that the temple was a private one. (vi) Finally, he relied on Balasubramania Gurukkal v. Sankara Gurukkal (1989)2 MLJ. There was no proof to show public ingress as a matter of right and also the temple was established from private funds and arrived at the conclusion that the temple was a private one. (vi) Finally, he relied on Balasubramania Gurukkal v. Sankara Gurukkal (1989)2 MLJ. 489 where it was held thus: “In the present case, it is not in dispute that the temple was built by ‘M’ father-in-law of the first defendant and the said ‘M’ was in management of the temple and after his death the first defendant was managing it. Therefore it cannot be disputed that initially at least, the temple was a private one. The temple cannot be said to be an old one. But if it has changed into a public temple, it must be the plaintiff who seeks a right without to prove that it has so happened. May be the public are allowed to poojas and perform kattalais but from that alone it cannot be said that the temple is a public one.” In this case, the suit related to Archaka right in a temple. The learned Judge held that when at its inception, the temple was clearly a private one, the plaintiff who sought a right on the ground that it is a public temple should prove atleast how a private temple changed into a public one and on facts, held that the temple was a private one. It was urged by the learned counsel that the appeal therefore should be dismissed. 7. Ex.C-1 which is the Commissioners Report speaks of the features noted by the Advocate Commissioner during the inspection of the suit property. The following sentences may be relevant: “(1). The suit property i.e., Vinayaka temple is situated on the southern side of the residential quarters of the plaintiff. (2) The suit property is at present accessible only through the zinc sheet double door entry gate on the western side of the backwall of the residential quarters of the plaintiff. (3) After entering through the side entrance and turning towards east, the suit property situated on the south of the plaintiffs residential quarters could be reached. - - - - (6) At the east of the temple, there is a locked wooden double door entry to the temple. The plaintiff handed over key of the lock to his son Thiru Kandasamy and he opened the lock of the temple. - - - - (6) At the east of the temple, there is a locked wooden double door entry to the temple. The plaintiff handed over key of the lock to his son Thiru Kandasamy and he opened the lock of the temple. ---- (10) No Hundi or Dvajasthambam is provided in the temple premises. (11) At about 30 feet on the east to the temple, there is a small Samadhi… and a Shivalingam is installed at the centre of the Samadhi. It is represented by the plaintiff that it is his fathers Samadhi.” 8. In Ex.A-1, the following recitals are found: and then, he goes on to dedicate the schedule mentioned properties for the temple. Ex.A-2 which is the revocation deed has the following recitals: Therefore, the recitals indicate that by the settlement deed, he had intended the properties to be used for the pooja of the deity, but subsequently, in the interest of his family and because his family members are themselves spending their funds for the upkeep of the temple, he was revoking the settlement deed. The evidence of D.W.1 is as follows: He also states that he has not made enquiries with anybody to ascertain whether the public have offered worship at the temple as a matter of right. 9. From a consideration of the evidence and Exhibits referred to above, it is clear that the suit temple is situated within the compound of the 1st respondents property and that access to the temple is through the same gate through which one enters the residential premises of the 1st respondent. It is also clear that to enter the temple, one has to obtain the permission of the 1st respondent and also obtain the keys from him. Therefore access is only upon the permission and pleasure of the founder and his family members. The absence of Hundi also shows that no contribution from the public is received at the temple. The recitals in Exs.A-1 and A-2 are clear that the founder had intended the temple to be only for the benefit of his family members. Another crucial feature is that the Samadhi of the ancestor of the family lies very close to the temple. No doubt, there is a presumption that private temples are very rare in South India, but it does not mean that there cannot be any private temple. Another crucial feature is that the Samadhi of the ancestor of the family lies very close to the temple. No doubt, there is a presumption that private temples are very rare in South India, but it does not mean that there cannot be any private temple. The 1st respondent asserts their claim that the temple is a private temple and to this end, they have shown that the founder has dedicated certain properties for the upkeep of the temple and he had clearly declared that the temple was for the benefit of this family. They have also demonstrated by having an Advocate Commissioner appointed to show that the physical features of the temple would establish that both the temple and the 1st respondents house have a common entry. They have established by acceptable evidence that control of the access to the temple is only with the 1st respondent. Now, it is for the appellant to dislodge their case by showing that it is a public temple and they have woefully failed to discharge the onus of proof that the temple is a public one. They have not even examined a member of the public to show that the public worshipped at the temple as a matter of right. The appellant wants the Court to hold that it is a public temple merely because there is a Vimaanam, a Balipeetam and an extension on all sides of the temple with facilities and also because Prasadam was distributed to the children who assemble everyday. Sporadic donations or participation in worship by permission of the founder will not make the temple a public one. Needless to say, in our country, public will not be forbidden from participating in or from being allowed to worship in a temple. The question is whether they do so as a matter of right or because the founder permits them to do so. The mere fact that Ex.A-1 was revoked by Ex.A-2 will not convert a private temple into a public one. 10. As seen from the decision reported in Chennammal v. The Commissioner for Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (1973)2 MLJ. 442 , Muthammal referred to above, clearest possible evidence is necessary to show that a temple which was private has now become public. 10. As seen from the decision reported in Chennammal v. The Commissioner for Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (1973)2 MLJ. 442 , Muthammal referred to above, clearest possible evidence is necessary to show that a temple which was private has now become public. In the same decision, the Division Bench of this Court after referring to the definition of temple in the Act, held thus: “temple means a place by whatever designation known used as a place of public religious worship, and dedicated to, or for the benefit of, or used as of right by, the Hindu community or any section thereof, as a place of public religious worship.” Therefore, it must be a place of public religious worship before one concludes that it is a public temple. The other decisions relied on by the learned counsel for the respondents apply to this case. The tests laid down in Radhakantha Dep v. Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments, Orissa Radhakantha Dep v. Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments, Orissa Radhakantha Dep v. Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments, Orissa A.I.R. 1981 S.C. 798 when applied to the suit temple would clearly show that the temple was a private one. There too, as in this case, the intention of the founder was to install a temple deity. Similarly, in the decision reported in Thanumalayaperumal v. Commissioner, H.R. & C.E. Thanumalayaperumal v. Commissioner, H.R. & C.E. Thanumalayaperumal v. Commissioner, H.R. & C.E. (1975)2 MLJ. 310 the Division Bench of this Court held that the sentiment of a Hindu will not turn away a worshipper. The mere circumstances that the people in the locality were visiting a temple will not make a private temple into a public one. In that case also, the learned Judges held that the department has not discharged the onus of proof to come to the conclusion that it was a public temple. Similarly, in Commissioner, H.R. & C.E. v. Swamikeela Arasalwar Dharmam Commissioner, H.R. & C.E. v. Swamikeela Arasalwar Dharmam Commissioner, H.R. & C.E. v. Swamikeela Arasalwar Dharmam (1983)2 MLJ. 274 as in this case, no member of the public was examined, who alone could speak about the right of the public to worship in the temple. In this case, the Executive Officer was examined as D.W.1 and in the decision cited above, the Inspector of the Department was examined as D.W.1. 11. 274 as in this case, no member of the public was examined, who alone could speak about the right of the public to worship in the temple. In this case, the Executive Officer was examined as D.W.1 and in the decision cited above, the Inspector of the Department was examined as D.W.1. 11. While in the decisions relied on by the learned counsel for the respondents support their case that it was a private temple, the appellant has not been able to show either by oral or documentary evidence on hand that it is a public temple, nor had the two decisions cited here support their case. In the decision reported in Ramaswamy Naidu v. Commissioner, H.R. & C.E. Ramaswamy Naidu v. Commissioner, H.R. & C.E. Ramaswamy Naidu v. Commissioner, H.R. & C.E. (1974)2 MLJ. 133 there was evidence to show that the public generally contributed to the Hundis and 20 years before the suit, the Religious Endowments Board interfered with the administration and the community did not protest. The performance by the public of daily poojas as of right were of clear indications of the public nature of the temple in that case. These are not available to the suit temple in that case. These are not available to the suit temple herein. Again, in the decision reported in V.Mahadeva v. Commissioner, H.R.E. V.Mahadeva v. Commissioner, H.R.E. V.Mahadeva v. Commissioner, H.R.E. A.I.R. 1956 Mad. 522 it was proved beyond all doubt that the Hindu public used the temple as a place of worship as of right, offerings were invited and accepted from members of the public and therefore, the temple in that case was rightly held to be a public temple. In the case before me, the Court below had rightly held on the oral and documentary evidence that while D.Ws.1 and 2 had deposed that the members of the public worshipped at the temple, D.W.1 would say that he had not examined any member of the public in this regard. The Court below on a consideration of Exs.A-1 and A-2 and the oral evidence, came to the conclusion that it was a private temple. The Court below on a consideration of Exs.A-1 and A-2 and the oral evidence, came to the conclusion that it was a private temple. Then as regards the existence of Prakaram and Gopuram, the learned Judge, on a consideration of the Commissioners Report Exs.C-1 and C-2, finds that a public temple cannot have a common access with private residential quarters and therefore, even if the temple has Prakaram and Gopuram, the temple can only be a private temple. The learned Judge also rightly scrapped the issue regarding the relevance of Ex.A-1 after it has been revoked by Ex.A-2. It is therefore seen that the temple is private one and the plaintiff has produced reasonable evidence both oral and documentary to support his claim that it is a private temple, while the appellant has not been successful in disproving the said fact. The features pointed out by Exs.C-1 and C-2 clearly denote that the temple cannot be anything but a private one. The reasoning of the learned Judge is sound and there is no necessity to interfere with the same. The first appeal is dismissed. No costs.