The main legal point established in the judgment is the significance of long user by the public in determining the nature of a temple as private or public, as well as the distinction between private and public endowments.

Varghese Kalliath,J.

1. This appeal relates to a question whether the temple scheduled in the plaint is a public or a private temple. The statutory authorities under the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951 as ' amended (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') found that the temple is a public temple. The appellate order of the Commissioner, Ext. A-4 and the order of the Deputy Commissioner in O. A. No. 21/75 dated 9th November 1977 were challenged in the suit and the plaintiffs prayed for cancellation of the orders,

2. The trial court, after taking evidence in the case, held that the order of the Deputy Commissioner in O. A. No. 21/75 dated 9th November 1977 and the order of the Commissioner in Appeal No. 4/77 dated 18th December 1978 are liable to be cancelled and the trial court cancelled it. This judgment is now under appeal.

3. In P. R. Sundara Aiyer's Malabar and Aliyasanthana Law, it is stated that many wealthy families own private temples of their own and in the case of Rajahs and Chieftains they are often situated within the precincts of their residence. The learned author has classified four classes of temples: (i) ancient temples founded by Parasurama, (ii) temples founded by Rajas, (iii) temples founded by village communities and (iv) temples founded by individuals. Mr. Wigram gives a slight modification in regard to class (iii) consisting of temples founded by village communities and individuals. His class (iv) consists of temples founded by devotees from alms, received.

4. The temples reputed to be founded by Parasurama who was the founder and the Sovereign of Kerala do not differ materially from the second class that comprises all temples founded by Sovereigns who ruled in different parts of Malabar (except the private temples attached to their own residences which are of the nature of family chapels) . These two clashes, may, therefore, be grouped together and are undoubtedly public institutions - see Malabar and Aliyasanthana Law by Sundra Aiyer.

5. To determine whether a temple is a private or a public temple, Sundara Aiyer, 'the learned author, says will no easy task in a given case. He further says that the general public are as a rule allowed to worship even where the temples are private institutions and most private temples also own more or less property.

6. The case of the plaintiffs is that the temple in question - Chathamangalam Temple - was founded by the illoms of the plaintiffs and defendants 1 and 2. It is stated that the properties were dedicated by the said illoms in ancient times in favour of the temple and that the respective karanavans of the 12 illoms consisting of the plaintiffs and defendants 1 and 2 are the ooralans of the temple and the temple is managed by them. The ooralans selected a samudayi and the affairs of the temple are looked after by the samudayi. At the time when the suit was instituted, there was no samudayi and therefore the temple administration was carried on, on the .majority decisions of the ooralans. It is the case of the plaintiffs that the general public has not dedicated any property to the temple. According to the plaintiffs, the temple belongs to the said 12 illoms and the families of the ooralans alone have the right over the temple and temple properties. In short, the case is that it is a private temple over which the Deputy Commissioner and the Commissioner under the Act cannot have any authority. It is admitted that if the temple is a private temple, the Act has no application.

7. As early as in 1937, the Madras Hindu Endowment Board demanded contributions from the temple in question and proceedings were initiated for recovery of the contribution by selling the temple properties. Under S.84 of the Act (Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1927) O.P. No.1/37 was filed before the District Court, South Malabar against Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Board for a declaration that it is not a public temple and for setting aside the ord