Katter expressed in a deed or may be inferred from a course of conduct.

S. Nainar Sundaram, J.

1. The defendants in O.S. No. 183 of 1975 on the file of the Second Additional Subordinate judge of Tirunelveli, are the appellants in this appeal. The respondents are the plaintiffs in the suit. The plaintiffs laid the suit under Section 70 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, XXII of 1959, hereinafter referred to as the Act, for setting aside the order of the second defendant dated 31st December, 1974, and for a declaration that the plaintiff trust and the properties belonging to it do not constitute a religious institution as defined in the Act and for a consequential injunction restraining the defendants, their agents and subordinates from enforcing the provisions of the Act in pursuance of the order of the second defendant, referred to above. The plaintiffs initially resorted to the process under Section 63 (a) of the Act before the Deputy Commissioner for Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments, Madras-34, in O.A. No. 41 of 1968 (Madurai) for a declaration) that the plaintiff trust and its temple, Navaneetha krishnan Mandir would not constitute a religious institution as defined in the Act. The said Deputy Commissioner, by order dated 29th April, 1972, marked in this case as Exhibit B-2, held that the plaintiff trust and the temple satisfy the definition of the term 'temple' as defined in Section 6(20) of the Act and in this view, dismissed the application of the plaintiffs. There was an appeal to the defendant in A.P. No. 149 of 1973 and the second defendant, by order dated 31st December, 1974, as per Exhibits A-3 and A-4, dismissed the appeal, confirming the order of the Deputy Commissioner. Hence the plaintiffs were obliged to file the suit for the above reliefs.

2. On an assessment of the materials in the shape of evidence, oral and documentary placed in the case the Court below came to the conclusion that the plaintiff trust and its properties cannot fall with in the category of 'temple' as claimed by the defendants and hence, it is not a religious institution and, in this view, the suit of the plaintiffs was decreed by the Court below with costs. Hence this appeal by the defendants.

The question that comes up for consideration in this appeal is as to whether the plaintiff trust with its temple, satisfies the definition of a 'temple' within the meaning of Section 6(20) of the Act, which is the stand specifically taken by the defendants, as expressed in the order passed by the concerned Deputy Commissioner in Exhibit B-2 and confirmed 1 by the second defendant in his order as per Exhibits A-3 and A-4.

Section 6(20) of the Act reads as follows:

(20) 'temple' means a place by whatever designation known used as a place of public religious worship, and dedicated to, or for; the benefit of, or used as of right by, the Hindu community or any section thereof, as a place of public religious worship;

To come within the above definition, the place or the institution must satisfy the following ingredients:

1. It must (be used as a place of public religious worship; and

2. (a) It must be dedicated to the Hindu community or any section there of as a place of public religious worship; or

(b) It must be used as of right by the Hindu community or any section thereof as a place of public religious worship.

3. Unless the conditions contemplated above are satisfied, it cannot be held that the institution is a temple within the meaning of the Act. The evidence placed on behalf of the plaintiff trust leaves no room for doubt that it cannot fall within the above definition. P.W. 1, examined on behalf of the plaintiff trust, is one of its trustees. He deposed that the plaintiff trust is a private trust; it was; originally established by Udaya Marthanda Raja, a Kerala King, about 400 years back; he gave the trust to the Brahmins of Karkudi who were the faithful followers of the King; and they were called Alwars and the trust was called "Swami Keela Arasalwar Dharmam". According to P.W.1, a