The definition of a temple under the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, and the jurisdiction of Civil Courts in matters relating to religious institutions.

( 1 ) THIS Second Appeal is directed against the decision of the learned Subordinate Judge, Srikakulam in A. S. 150 of 1958 on his file. The relevant facts may briefly be stated.

( 2 ) THE plaintiff is the "deity of Srirama-mandiram of Gangada" in Srikaulam District re-presenfed by its trustee Ganta Vallablia Naidu. The suit was filed under the following circumstances.

( 3 ) HE was appointed as a trustee under the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) by a resolution of the Area committee dated 3-5-1954. About 50 years ago, Dalinaidu, the paternal grand-father of the defendant (Marrapu Venkata Ramamurthy), Ganta Laxminaidu and Ganta Val-labha Naidu, raised public subscriptions and constructed the suit "srirama Mandiram" for the worship of the villagers. They persuaded one Neti Simhachalam who was having the patta for the plaint A schedule land to relinquish it in favour of "srirama Mandiram". They approached the Raja of Bobbili to grant that patta in their names for the benefit of the Deity at a concessional rate of cist and, accordingly, the patta bearing No. 58 was granted to these three persons. They were utilising the income therefrom for the benefit of "srirama Mandiram". They appointed one Venkata Seetharamayya as the Archaka of the temple.

( 4 ) WHEN the cultivating tenant of the land Chukka Jagannadha Swamy did not vacate, the three trustees instituted O. S. No. 517 of 1955 in the court of the District Munsif, Parvathipu-ram for possession of the suit land and, by way of compromise, recovered possession of the land in question. Later, the trustees appointed one Mangu Gopal Rao, as the Archaka and after him one Kandukuri Appalaswamy. The temple was thus being maintained with the consent and for the benefit of the villagers from the income of the suit land. After the death of Ganta Vallabha Naidu, and after the defendants father Jagannadha Swamy left the village the remaining trustee Ganta Lakshminaidu, Narayanaswami Naidu, the son of Vallabhanaidn and three or four others were managing the suit temple. One Ghukka Madanna and others cut and carried away the standing crop on the suit land in 1934, and thereupon, the defendant claiming himself to be the sole trustee and also the Archaka instituted O. S. 364 of 1934 and obtained a decree. The plaint schedule immovable property and B schedule properties belong to the Deity of Srirama Mandiram and that it is a public Temple. The plaintiff Ganta Vallabha Naidu as the trustee has therefore filed the suit for recovery of A and B schedule properties from the defendant, alleging that he was also authorised by the Board to institute the suit.

( 5 ) THE defendant resisted the suit contending that the suit temple is not a public temple, but that it is a private temple constructed by his paternal grand-father for his own benefit that the suit property is his private property, and has been in his possession and enjoyment for more than thirty tour years, and that he is entitled to sell the same. He also challenged the appointment of the present trustee.

( 6 ) THE learned District Munsif on a consideration of the evidence held that the suit temple was dedicated for the use of the public, that the present trustee Vallabha Naidu was properly appointed, that the property in question belongs to the temple and that the defendant is estopped by his admissions and conduct from denying the title of the Deity to it.

( 7 ) ON appeal to the Subordinate Judge in A. S. No. 150 of 1956 the decision of the trial Court was upheld. Aggrieved by this decision the defendant has preferred this second appeal. Sri K. V. Rangachari, the learned counsel for the appellant raised the following contentions: 1. That "srirama Mandiram" is not a temple. 2. That in any event, it is a private temple but not a public temple; 3. that the suit properties are the appellants absolute properties; and 4. that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit.