Impugned temple is presumed to be public.

These two appeals arise out of one common judgment rendered by Subordinate Judge of Ramanathapuram in Madurai, in O.S.No.65 of 1969 and O.S.No.124 1969. O.S.No.65 of 1969 was decreed, while O.S.No.124 of 1969 was dismissed. As against the decree in O.S.No.65 of 1969 A.S.No.710 of 1981 has been filed and as against decree passed in O.S.No.124 of 1969 A.S.No.828 of 1983 has been filed. O.S.No.65 of was filed by one K.T.T.Ramalingam Chettiar against Muthuramalingam Pillai and others, the eighth defendant being the Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments, Madras, while O.S.No.124 of 1969 was filed by the said Muthuramalingam and six others against the said K.T.T.Ramalingam Chettiar, the plaintiff in O.S.No.65 1969and that suit was filed for recovery of possession and for damages. Both the appeals can be disposed of in one common judgment. In both the suits the case of the respective parties is the same. For convenience sake, as the trial Judge has done, the plaintiff O.S.No.65 of 1969 will be hereafter referred to as plaintiff and the defendants in that suit the defendants.

2. Now the case of the plaintiff in brief is that, the suit temple which is known Pazhikkanjia Vinayagar temple at Sivakasi is a public temple. It was founded by Ayira Kasukara Chettiars community. It was managed and administered by the plaintiff and predecessors. The defendants and their predecessors were only Poosaries in the temple they had nothing to do with the ownership of the temple. The defendants filed an application before the Deputy Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department declaration that the suit temple is a private temple and that was ordered. The preferred before the Commissioner was dismissed. The plaintiff filed statutory suit Sec.70 of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act for setting aside that and to declare the suit temple as a public temple.

3. The defendants contended that it is a private temple belonging to the family defendants. They also contended that the suit temple was constructed by their Muthulinga Othuvar in his own land and the idol was consecrated as a family deity defendants and their ancestors have been in possession and management of the temple throughout and they are not mere Othuvars.

4. On consideration of the evidence adduced in the case the trial court held by its judgment dated 30.11.1971 that the suit temple is a private temple. Accordingly it decreed the suit O.S.No.124 of 1969 filed by the defendants and dismissed the suit O.S.No.65 of 1969 filed by the plaintiff;

5. The matter was taken on appeal to this Court and in that appeal, observing that the trial court has not considered properly some of the relevant evidence in the case set aside the said judgment of the trial court and remitted it back to the trial court for fresh disposal.

6. The trial court by its judgment dated 29.11.1980 in reversal of its earlier judgment, held that the suit temple is a public temple as pleaded by the plaintiff and not a private temple contended by the defendants. Accordingly it decreed the suit O.S.No.65 of 1969 and dismissed the suit O.S.No.124 of 1969. As against this, now the defendants have filed these two appeals.

7. Mr.W.CThiruvengadam, learned counsel appearing for the appellants-defendants would contend that the finding of the trial court is quite contrary to the evidence in the case. would lay much stress on Ex.82 filed by the defendants. This is a photo of a Silasasanam the year 1669. As per the said Silasasanam the temple has been built by Muthusamy Othuvar, the ancestor of the appellants.

8. It is not in dispute that there is such a Silasasanam in the temple. But however it argued for the plaintiffs that even ii this Silasasanam is a genuine one that alone will not prove that the temple is a private one. No doubt this Silasasanam would show that the temple has been built by Muthusamy Othuvar, but the question is whether he intended it be a private temple or