Sir John Edge :-

This is an appeal by the defendants from an order of the High Court at Madras dated the 25th September, 1919, by which it was declared that the temple of Sri Kandaswami, otherwise known as Sri Subramaniaswami in the village of Kalipatta, situate in district of Salem, was a public religious institution, and remanding the suit to the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Salem with a direction that a scheme for the management of the temple should be framed by that Court in the light of the observations contained in the judgment delivered by the High Court. In the plaint it had been alleged that the defendants were unfit to be the pujaris or dharmakartas of the temple and it was prayed that they should be removed from office. By the order of remand that prayer was disallowed.

The plaintiffs are Hindus who worship at the temple. They are not related to the family of the defendants. The first plaintiff is a Brahmin, the other two plaintiffs and the defendants are Sudras by caste. The first defendant has been for some years the pujari of the temple; he succeeded his father as pujari of the temple, and his father succeeded as pujari of the temple his father Lakshmana Goundan, who died in 1856 or 1857, and was the founder of the temple. The other defendant is the undivided son of the first defendant. In this judgment when a temple is mentioned without any other description it will be understood that the temple of Kandaswami in the village of Kalipatta is the temple referred to.

If the temple is not a public temple the plaintiffs have no right to maintain the suit in which this appeal has arisen; unless it is a public temple the plaintiffs are not concerned with it or with its management; their only remedy in such a case is to cease worshipping at the temple if they do not approve of the management of it. The defendants deny that the temple is a public temple. Their case is that the temple is and has always been the private property of the family to which they belong.

The temple is not an ancient temple. It was founded between 1841 and 1856 by Lakshmana Goundan, the grandfather of the first defendant, under circumstances which will later be mentioned, Unless the temple was dedicated to the public it was not a public temple, and in their Lordships' opinion a dedication of it to the public, if it was dedicated, must have been by Lakshmana Goundan, the grandfather of the first defendant. No deed or other document of dedication of the temple has been produced, and it may be taken as a fact that there never was any deed or document of dedication of the temple to the public. In 1817 the British Government assumed the control of all public endowments, Hindu and Mahommedan, in the Presidency of Madras and placed them under the charge of the Board of Revenue; that policy was continued and acted upon until Act XX of 1863 was passed, when the Government divested itself of the charge and control of such institutions and placed them under the management of their respective creeds. (See VIDYA VARUTHI THIRTHA v. BALUSAMI AYYAR 1922 P. C. 123 - 44 Mad 831 - 48 IA 302 - 41 MLJ 346 - 1921 MWN 449 30 MLT 66 - 15 MLW 78 - 3 PLT 245 - 26 CWN 537 - 20 ALJ 497 - 24 Bom LR 629 - 65 IC 121. The temple at Kalipatta was not taken under the control of the Board of Revenue. It may be assumed that it would have been taken under the control of the Board if it had been dedicated to the public by a deed which was made public. The question whether the temple ever was dedicated to the public must consequently depend upon inferences which can legitimately be drawn from facts not in dispute and from unambiguous evidence on the record of this suit, regard being had to the principles of Hinduism which prevail in the Presidency of Madras. It would be a legitimate inference to draw that the founder of the temple, the grandfather of the first defendant, had dedicated the temple to the public if it was found that he had held out the temple to the public as a public te