The essentials of a "temple" as defined in sub-section 17 of section 6 of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951, are that it should be used as a place of public religious worship and that it should have been dedicated to or for the benefit of the Hindu community or any section thereof as a place of public religious worship.

( 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.

( 3 ) THE learned Subordinate Judge has in my opinion, correctly stated the effect of the recitals in Ex. A-l as follows :". . . . . . . . . The gift deed clearly recites that the income from the property gifted should be utilised for performing Nitya Nivedya Deeparadhana by the members ot his (donor s) family from generation to generation ; that the members ot his family have to utilise the income trom the property in the above manner and enjoy the properly without right to sell or gift: and that they have to pay land revenue on the property. The intention ot the founder that the temple should not be used by the members of the public as a place of religious worship is of course not stated in the deed. It is also not expressly stated in the deed that the temple has been dedicated for the use of the public as a place of religious worship. So the absence of any clause in the deed prohibiting the members ot the public trom using the temple as a place of religious worship cannot be construed as the intention of the founder that the temple should be used as a public religious institution. I find the express recitals in the deed as pointed above by which the members of his family have exclusively been empowered to te in management and enjoyment of the property endowed and utilise the income for the performance of the daily pooja and Sri Ramanavami Jayanthi give more an indication that the temple was thiefly intended for the use of religious worship by members of his family than for its use as a place of public religious worship. "

( 4 ) IN addition to the intrinsic evidence furnished by the recitals in Ex. A-1 the learned Subordinate Judge also relied upon the oral evidence