Ownership of a temple and its dedication or use as a place of public worship by the Hindu community are crucial factors in determining the classification of a temple under the Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950.

1. This appeal is by the plaintiff, who is the Karnavan of a Nambudiri Illom, called Venmani Illom, and arises in a suit to set aside a decision of the respondent, the Cochin Devaswom Board, that Sree Bhoothapuram Koottale temple or Kottale temple, or the temple for short, situated in Paralam Village in Trichur Taluk, is an institution as defined in S.61 sub-section (6) of the Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950. According to the plaintiff, this temple is a Keezhedom or a subsidiary shrine of Sree Bhoothapuram temple in Thekkumbhagom Village, both of which are private temples and are owned by his Illom. One Govinda Kaimal was the karyastha of the temple under the Illom till his death in the year 1124. After his death there were disputes and civil and criminal cases between the Illom and Govinda Kaimal's relations and feelings were estranged between them. While so, it was alleged, that at the instance of Kunju Kaimal and Raman Nair who are the sons-in-law of Govinda Kaimal, a petition, Ext. D1 dated the 17th August, 1951, was submitted to the respondent for taking over the management of the temple and properties. The respondent contended that the temple did not belong to the appellant's Illom, but was founded by the Koottale tarwad, that the Illom was at best only a trustee of the temple, that it has been used as a place of public worship as of right by the Hindus of the locality and that the appellant is not entitled to any relief. The District Judge, Trichur accepted the contentions of the respondent and dismissed the suit.

2. The question for determination is whether the temple is an institution as defined in the Act. The relevant part of that definition is as follows:

"'institution'shall mean a Hindu Religious Institution.... dedicated to or for the benefit of or used as of right by the Hindu community or any section thereof and shall include

(a) every Hindu temple or shrine so dedicated or used as of right by the Hindu community or any section thereof as a place of religious worship and all property belonging to or given or endowed for the benefit or support of such temple or shrine or for the purpose of any service or charity".

The points to consider are, whether the temple was owned by the appellant's Illom, and whether it was dedicated to or used as of right by the Hindu community or any section thereof as a place of religious worship. Differing from the District Judge, I find little difficulty in coming to the conclusion on the documentary evidence, that the temple was owned by the appellant's Illom. Ext. P. 41 is a patta kychit in favour of the Illom which described the properties as. The Judge below was not right in discarding this description, merely on account of the endorsement of the stamp vendor. Ext. P. 42 and Ext. P. 26 are counterparts of demises of the years 1077 and 1078 containing a similar description. These documents, especially Ext. P. 41 the most ancient of them, may be considered to possess great evidentiary value. Ext. P. 21 is the udampady for management of the temple which the appellant's Illom gave to Govinda Kaimal on the 27th Meenom,1119, describing the temple as Exts. P. 2 to P.12 & Exts. P. 24. P. 25 and P. 27 are documents of the year 1120 which also contain a similar description of the temple and its properties. Ext. P. 22 is a receipt executed by the heirs of Govinda Kaimal, that is the wife and the sister-in-law of D. W. 3 in favour of the appellant's Illom under which they give up all documents etc. in their possession to the Illom Ext. P. 23 is an award of the year 1123 in the Illom wherein the properties in schedule B were referred to as belonging to the temple owned the Illom. Ext. P.18 is the account book maintained by Govinda Kaimal for the temple under the heading, that the temple belongs to the illom and Ext. P.19 and Ext. P. 20 are continuation of such accounts maintained by his son-in-law. The Judge discarded Exts. P. 2 to P. 25 and Ext. P. 27 as of c