JUDGMENT 1. This Appeal had been filed by the defendants in O.S. No. 183 of 1990 on the file of the First Additional Subordinate Court, Nagercoil. O.S. No. 183 of 1990 had been filed by the first plaintiff, the Parvathipuram Gramam Brahmana Samudayam Trust, represented by its Trustees and Manager and by the Trustees who were shown as plaintiffs 2 to 13 against two defendants namely, the Commissioner of HR and CE Administration Department, Madras and Assistant Commissioner of HR and CE Administration Department, Nagercoil. It was filed under Section 70 of the Tamil Nadu HR and CE Act 1959, seeking a Judgment and Decree to set aside and reverse the order passed by the first defendant on 31.07.1990 and declare that Sree Venugopalaswamy Temple in Parvathipuram, is a private temple and belongs to the first plaintiff. 2. This suit came up for consideration before the First Additional Subordinate Court, Nagercoil and by Judgment and Decree dated 28.10.2003, the suit was decreed. Challenging that Judgment, the defendants have filed the present first appeal. 3. In the plaint in O.S. No. 183 of 1990, the plaintiffs claimed that the first plaintiff Trust is a private trust. It owns several items of immovable properties obtained on Royal grants by the then Raja of Travancore. The families who reside in the Agraharam are descendants of the persons who originally settled there. It was claimed that at the western extreme end of the Agraharam, a temple had been constructed by the name Sree Venugopalaswamy Temple. The residents alone perform the pooja in the Temple. The administration is by the trustees. They have sufficient funds to conduct poojas and special functions. 4. It was stated that in the year 1960, the officials of the HR and CE, Administration Department called upon the trustees to furnish particulars and accounts. It was furnished. Again in 1982, the officials of HR and CE, Administration Department, Nagercoil called for production of accounts. The accounts were furnished. However, in 1985, once again the HR and CE, Administration Department, attempted to interfere in the administration of the Temple. 5. The Trustees then filed O.A. No. 7 of 1986, under Section 63(A) of HR and CE Act before the Deputy Commissioner Tirunelveli. That petition was dismissed. The appeal in A.P. No. 82 of 1989 filed before the first defendant under Section 69(1) of the HR and CE Act was also dismissed. 5. The Trustees then filed O.A. No. 7 of 1986, under Section 63(A) of HR and CE Act before the Deputy Commissioner Tirunelveli. That petition was dismissed. The appeal in A.P. No. 82 of 1989 filed before the first defendant under Section 69(1) of the HR and CE Act was also dismissed. Thereafter, the plaintiff had filed the present suit under Section 70 of the HR and CE Act. 6. It had been stated in the plaint that the temple had been constructed by the ancestors of the families now living in the Agraharam. It was stated that the general public cannot worship in the temple as a matter of right. It was stated that the findings given by the Deputy Commissioner and by the Commissioner were against established facts. It had been stated that the temple had been constructed more than 150 years before. It was therefore contended that the order of the first defendant declaring the temple as a public temple should be cancelled and set aside. 7. The defendants in their written statement, stated that the temple is situated on a Poromboke land. It was stated that the worship by the were never restricted. It was stated that all the community members in the village worshipped in the temple as a matter of right. The street is not private street. The temple tank is used by various community people. There is no documentary evidence to prove who constructed the temple. It had been stated that the findings given by the Deputy Commissioner and by the Commissioner are legally sustainable and it was prayed that the suit should be dismissed. 8. The plaintiffs, then filed a reply statement. They have denied the averments made in the written statement. They have further stated that only the plaintiffs and their community people alone administer the temple and perform the poojas. They stated that the Temple Idols are not taken out in procession and there are no public festivals. It was stated that the suit should be decreed. 9. On the basis the rival pleadings, the learned First Additional Subordinate Judge, Nagercoil framed the following issues for consideration: "(i) Whether the Sree Venugopala Swamy Temple is a Private Temple? (ii) Whether the order of the Commissioner HR and CE, declaring the Temple to be a public temple is to be set aside? 9. On the basis the rival pleadings, the learned First Additional Subordinate Judge, Nagercoil framed the following issues for consideration: "(i) Whether the Sree Venugopala Swamy Temple is a Private Temple? (ii) Whether the order of the Commissioner HR and CE, declaring the Temple to be a public temple is to be set aside? (iii) Whether the plaintiffs had given notice before institution of the suit? (iii) To what reliefs the plaintiff is entitled to?" 10. During trial, the tenth plaintiff Sankaranarayanan was examined as PW-1. On behalf of the defendant V. Srinivasan Pottri, Inspector of HR and CE Department was examined as DW-1. The plaintiffs marked Exs.A1 to A14. Ex.A1 is the order in A.P. No. 82 of 1989, dated 31.07.1990. Ex.A3 is the suit notice, dated 20.10.1990. Exs.A6 and A7 were rough sketches, Ex.A8 were two photographs with negatives. Exs.A11 to A14 are the grants granted by the Travancore Samasthanam to Parvathipuram village. On the side of the defendants, the certificate given by the Village Administrative Officer, Vadacherry, dated 07.07.1886 was marked as Ex.B1. 11. The learned Trial Judge considered the oral and documentary evidence. He found that Sree Venugopala Swamy Temple at Parvathipuram village was a very old Temple more than 150 years old. The land where the temple was located and where the local residents resided were granted by the then Travancore Raja. The learned Judge also found that the temple was not included in the list of incorporated and unincorporated temples under Schedule II of Act 22 of 1959. The learned Judge held that the evidence of DW-1 could not be believed. It was also found that the inspection report prepared by the HR and CE Administration Department which formed the basis of the order of the Deputy Commissioner and Commissioner of HR and CE were not produced before the Court. The learned Judge severely commented on the non- production of that vital document. He also considered Exs.A11 to A14 which were the grants given by the Travancore Samasthanam. It was also found that the Temple did not have a Rajagopuram, Hundial, Kodimaram, and Balipeedam. The defendants also did not file any documents with respect to the administration of the temple. In view of all these findings, the learned Judge held that the plaintiffs were entitled for declaration as sought for in the suit and consequently, decreed the suit by Judgment, dated 28.10.2003. 12. The defendants also did not file any documents with respect to the administration of the temple. In view of all these findings, the learned Judge held that the plaintiffs were entitled for declaration as sought for in the suit and consequently, decreed the suit by Judgment, dated 28.10.2003. 12. The defendants have filed the present first appeal. The points for determination in this appeal are as follows: "1. Whether non-production of inspection report which formed the basis for the orders in Ex.A1 and A2 is fatal to the case of the appellant/defendant? 2. Whether the temple is a private temple or a public temple? 3. Whether the temple is exclusively administered by the first plaintiff's trust? 4. Whether Judgment and Decree of the Trial Court requires interference?" 13. Heard arguments advanced by Mr. J. Gunaseelan Muthiah, learned Additional Government Pleader for the appellants and Mr. S. Ramesh, learned counsel for the respondents. 14. The parties shall be referred as plaintiffs and defendants. The plaintiffs are the respondents in the appeal and the defendants are the appellants in the appeal. 15. The first plaintiff is the Parvathipuram Gramam Brahmana Samudayam Trust. The members are the Brahmin inhabitants of Parvathipuram Gramam. Sree Vegugopalaswamy Temple is administered by the first plaintiff. The temple is more than 150 years old. It had been continuously under the administration of the inhabitants of the residents of Parvathipuram Gramam. They were performing the poojas. They were in active administration of the temple. This temple was declared as a public temple by the defendants on the basis of an inspection report submitted by the Inspector HR and CE. This was admitted DW-1. That inspection report was not been filed before the Court. It is not known as to why the defendants did not choose to file the said report. 16. Section 114(g) of the Indian Evidence Act, states that adverse inference can be drawn against a party for non-production of any vital document and the adverse inference that can be drawn is that the document had not been produced only because it would be adverse to the interest of the party in whose possession it is in. 17. In the present case, the report of the Inspector of HR and CE was in the possession of defendants. DW-1 was also Inspector of HR and CE. He did not produce the inspection report. 17. In the present case, the report of the Inspector of HR and CE was in the possession of defendants. DW-1 was also Inspector of HR and CE. He did not produce the inspection report. It is seen from the evidence that the temple does not have a Rajagopuram, does not have a Hundial, does not have a Kodimaram and does not have a Balipeedam. These are necessary and essential ingredients for a public temple. 18. A temple had been defined under Section 6(20) of the HR and CE Act 1959, as follows: "Temple means a place by whether designation known used as a place of public religious worship and, dedicated to, or for the benefit of, or caused as of right by, the Hindu Community or of any section therefor, as a place of public religious worship." 19. One of the further important ingredient required to declare a temple as a public temple is that there must be dedication for the benefit of the Hindu community as a place of public religious worship. In the present case, there is no evidence of such dedication. It has been the consistent stand of the plaintiffs that the temple had been worshiped only by the members of the first plaintiff trust and its samudayam and the general public do not have a right to worship. 20. In T.D. Gopalan Vs. Commissioner of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment, (1972) 2 SCC 329 , Madras, the Supreme Court held as follows: "(a) That origin of the mandapam had been proved to be private. (b) That its management had remained throughout in members of the Thoguluva family. (c) That there was complete absence of any endowed property. The temple has to be declared as a private temple." 21. In the present case, the origin of the temple is obscure. But it is seen from Exs.A11 to A14 that the Travancore Samasthanam have given a specific grant to the community at Parvathipuram village and that the management of the Sree Venugopalaswamy Temple had been vested with the members of the Brahmin community in the village. It is clear that the temple is a private temple. It is also seen that DW-1 had admitted that Exs.A11 to A14 relate to the grant made by the Travancore Samasthanam to the temple more than 150 years ago. It is clear that the temple is a private temple. It is also seen that DW-1 had admitted that Exs.A11 to A14 relate to the grant made by the Travancore Samasthanam to the temple more than 150 years ago. It is also seen that DW-1 had admitted that in the schedule of incorporated and unincorporated temples in the Travancore Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, Sree Venugopalaswamy Temple was not included. Thereafter, even after the territories had been transferred to Tamil Nadu and the said Act has been repealed by the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment (3rd Amendment) Act, in schedule-1 of the Act, Sree Venugopalaswamy Temple, Parvathipuram is not included as an incorporated or unincorporated temple. 22. The above points clearly establish that Sree Venugopalaswamy Temple, Parvathipuram is a private temple belonging to the first plaintiff Trust. It is under the exclusive management of the members of the trust. The defendants have not produced any evidence contradicting these facts established by the plaintiffs. It is also seen that the inspection report had not been produced which goes to the root of the case. The plaintiffs did not have any opportunity to cross examine the defendant's witness on the issues raised in the said report. It is to be presumed that the report had not been produced only because it was adverse to the stand of the defendants. 23. Consequently, I hold that the appeal has no merits and has to be dismissed. The Judgment and Decree of the Trial Court in O.S. No. 183 of 1990 by the First Additional Subordinate Judge, Nagercoil, dated 28.10.2003 is confirmed. This appeal is dismissed with costs.