( 1 ) IN this letters patent appeal, the question before this Court is whether the suit temple is a public temple or a private temple. The genesis of this case goes back to an entry made in the book of endowments on 11-11-1342 Fasli, registering the temple as public temple. The law at that time provided that such an entry could be challenged before the deputy Commissioner, but the appellants herein did not choose to approach the Deputy commissioner till 1975, when they filed OA no. 66 of 1975. The Deputy Commissioner, vide his order dated 28-2-1977, did not agree with the appellants and dismissed the O. A. The law provided for challenging such a finding of Deputy Commissioner by way of a suit. Thereafter, O. S. No. 58 of 1977 was filed which was decreed by the trial court on 10th of March 1981.

( 2 ) THE case of appellants all along had been that the temple was constructed over a piece of land which was purchased by their ancestors on 18-12-1302 Fasli by ex. A-42 sale deed, and all along, they had been maintaining the temple as their private temple. The plaintiffs maintained that a hanuman idol was installed in the premises bearing No. 170, Residency bazaar, hyderabad. The number of the premises was later-on changed to Municipal No. 4-2-123, sultan Bazar, Hyderabad. The appellants/ plaintiffs claimed that their grandfather, and after his death, their father Gorakhnath tiwari, performed pooja and after his death, the plaintiffs were performing pooja since 1969 and were managing the temple. The plaintiffs re-modelled and re-shaped the structure and the tin roof was converted into RCC roof. Plaintiffs made these improvements with the permission of the municipal Corporation of Hyderabad and they had been paying the property tax, water and electricity charges and no donations were ever collected and no offerings were accepted from the pubic. Suit temple was the private and exclusive property of plaintiffs and it was not dedicated to the public. In the year 1965, plaintiffs received a letter from the Endowments department asking them to submit an account on the ground that the suit temple had been endowed by plaintiffs' father on 19th Mehar 1345 Fasli, but they maintained that plaintiffs' father never endowed the property.

( 3 ) THE defendants claimed that the plaintiff and their ancestors were only the poojaris of the temple. They had no rights in the suit temple. Suit temple was an old one and large number of devotees daily visit the temple and worship the deity. Suit temple was not a residential place, but was a public temple within the meaning of Section 2 of the A. P. Charitable and hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments act. They also stated that devotees were making offerings to the deity and the plaintiffs were receiving them and the income of the suit temple was Rs. 5,000/- per month. It was registered in the book of endowments in the year 1342 Fasli and pursuant to the registration of temple, a Muntaqab had been issued and duly published in the hyderabad Gazette. The suit was not filed within time.

( 4 ) ON the basis of these pleadings, the following issues were framed by the trial Court-

" 1. Whether the order of Deputy Commissioner, endowments Department, Guntur dated 28-2-1977 passed in O. A. No. 66 of 1975 is fit to be set aside ? 2. Whether the suit temple is a public temple or a private temple ? 3. Whether the entry dated 11-11-1342 Fasli registering the suit temple in the Book of Endowments is liable to be declared as null and void ?"

( 5 ) THE trial Court came to the conclusion that the Suit temple was a private temple and therefore, allowed the suit and passed a decree. In appeal, the learned single Judge of this Court reversed the decree and dismissed the suit, holding that the temple was a public temple.

( 6 ) IN these circumstances, this Court has to consider whether the temple was a public temple or a private temple.

( 7 ) BEFORE going to the arguments of learned Counsel for the parti