COMMISSIONER H R ANDC E Vs. PURUSHOTTAMACHARYULU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The sole question for determination in this appeal is, whether the Court below was right in holding that Sri Ramachandraswami Temple, situated in Pondalur village, is a private temple and not a public temple. The defendantsappellants contended that it is a public temple while the plaintiff-respondent maintained that it is a private temple. Oa an appreciaticn ot the evidence, oral and documentary, adduced by the patties, the lower Court reached the conclusion that the institution in question is a private temple and not a public temple within the meaning of sub-section 17 of section 6 of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951 (hereafter referred to as the Act')- The appellants challenge the correctness of that finding.

(2.) The material facts are as followa : - The plaintiff's father Subbanacharyulu constructed the suit temple with his own funds and installed therein the idols of Sri Ramachandraswami and Seetha Devi in the year 1898 and gifted Acs. 2-25 cents of land under the gift-deed Ex. A-1 executed on 8-1-1898 for the upkeep of the temple and for the performance of daily pujas and Sri RamNavami Jayanthi The value of the property so endowed was stated to be Rs. 280/-. The plaintiff s case is that this small temple which is two yards width and two-and-half yards in length was constructed in the compound of his family house by his father solely tor the worship of the deity by the members of his family ; that it has always been treated as a private family temple and that the plaintiff and other members of his family alone have been rendering daily and periodical pujas in the temple ; that the members of the public have never entered or worshipped the deity in the temple, nor did they make any offerings at the temple at any time, and that the temple was never meant for the use of the public, nor was it dedicated to or for the benefit of the public, In support of his case, the plaintiff relied on Ex. A-l, the gift deed, and the oral evidence of himself as P. W, 1 and that of four witnesses examined as P, Ws. 2 to 5. As a good deal of arguments in this case has turned upon the true construction of the recitals in Ex. A-l, the material portion of that document, as found in the original in Telugu, may usefully be extracted. <IMG>JUDGEMENT_243_ALT1_1967Image1.jpg</IMG>

(3.) The learned Subordinate Judge has in my opinion, correctly stated the effect of the recitals in Ex. A-l as follows :