The main legal point established in the judgment is that for a temple to be considered a public endowment, there must be evidence of dedication to the public, and extensive public participation alone is not sufficient to transform a private temple into a public one.

Appellants in A.S.97 of 1993 are the plaintiffs in O.S.65 of 1985 of the Sub Court, Cherthala. Appellants in A.S.155 of 1994 are defendants 3 and 4 in O.S.15 of 1986 of the same Court, These two suits along with O.S.16 of 1986 were tried together. The Sub Judge dismissed O.S.65 of 1985 and O.S.16 of 1986. O.S.15 of 1986 was decreed and Ext. A-35 document executed by the defendants was declared void and not binding on members of Vattakeril family. Defendants in O.S.15 of 1986 who are not members of Vattakeril family are injuncted by a permanent injunction from interfering with the affairs of the temple.

2. Plaintiffs in O.S.65 of 1985 filed the suit for framing a scheme for the administration of the temple on the allegation that it is a public endowment. It is also alleged that defendants are not properly carrying on the administration of the temple, that they are utilising its income for their personal needs and that if they are allowed to continue to do so it would be detrimental to the larger interests of the worshipers of the temple, the beneficiaries of the trust. Plaintiffs assert that Sree Kandakarna Temple is a public trust and so to protect its interests and for proper administration of the same a scheme has to be framed. Defendants contended that as per Ext. A1 partition deed of their family in 1107 ME 16 cents of land temple are kept in common for the exclusive benefit of the members and so it cannot be claimed by anyone under the guise of public trust.

3. The question that arises for consideration is whether the plaintiffs are entitled -to institute the suit under S.92 of the C.P.C. Plaintiffs have admitted that the property belonged to Vattakeril family. Specific mention of Ext. A-1 partition deed is made in para.2 of the plaint. It is the admitted case on the side of the plaintiffs that the property having an extent of 16 cents and temple are kept in common for the benefit of all the members of the family. But their contention is that it has become a public trust during course of time.

4. From the recitals in Ext. A-1 it can be seen that in the partition in the Vattakeril family Sakhas 1 to 3 referred to as Vattakeril Sakha and Sakhas 4 to 7 styled as Ponnankattu Sakha were given rights to administer the temple in 16 cents of land set apart in common to all the members. Sakhas 1 to 3 are denoted as Group I and Sakhas 4 to 7 as Group II. Recitals in Ext. A-1 disclose that Sree Kandakarna Temple and premises belong to all the members of the Vattakeril family and no member has any special right over it. It is also provided in Ext. A-1 that Groups I and II have to carry on the affairs of the temple in alternative years using its income. Family members of Group I are entitled to reside in the dwelling house in the property.

5. Though the plaintiffs admit Ext A1, their contention is that apart from the family members Hindus of the locality also used to worship in the temple and they have contributed amounts to meet its expenses and also for its renovation. PWs.1 to 4 were examined to prove extensive public participation in the conduct of festivals in the temple.

6. According to the plaintiffs, a committee was constituted for the administration of the temple in 1983 and for a while the concerned Sakhas carried on the affairs of the temple. They project Ext. A35 agreement executed between some third parties and some members of Group I of the family for providing provisions for the administration of the temple, O.S.15 of 1986 was filed for a declaration that Ext.A35 is void. That suit was decreed.

7. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that in view of the overwhelming evidence in the case regarding public participation the only conclusion possible is that though at the inception it was a private temple it has at present become a public one and hence for safeguarding its interests the trial Court ought to have decreed O.S.65 of 1985. It is contended by the plaintiffs that the Hindus of the locality used to wo