Temple cannot be deemed to be public temple.

The unsuccessful plaintiffs are the appellants in the above appeal. The case of the appellants is that the first plaintiff’s father installed his family deity Bhadrakaliamman on the northern portion of the line of building which were put up by him in Survey No.39, Thottipalayam Village, Palladam Taluk and he was doing pooja. It is not a place of public religious worship and only during festival times public are invited for the celebration. No contribution was collected from the public or anybody. After the death of the plaintiffs’ father, the first plaintiff was doing pooja. According to the plaintiffs, the building is registered in the name of the first plaintiff and he has been paying the house tax. The first plaintiff’s father installed Muniappan temple in front of Bhadrakalaiamman temple. The public has not right to worship in the temple except with the permission of the plaintiff. The application filed by the first plaintiff in A.A.No.91 of 1976 before the Deputy Commissioner, H.R. & C.E., Coimbatore under Sec.63-A of the Act was rejected. The appeal in A.P.No.162 of 1977 filed before the defendant met with the same fate. So, the suit had been filed for a decree for declaration that the Bhadrakaliamman Temple is a private temple belonging to the plaintiff and for costs. Pending suit the first plaintiff died on 17. 1982 and the plaintiffs 2 to 5 were impleaded as his legal heirs.

2. The defendant/respondent resisted the suit by filling a written statement stating that the suit temple has got all characteristics of a public temple and it has bene used as a place of public religious worship and dedicated to Hindu community. The contributions are also made by the public. The first plaintiff had been doing poojas of the temple in his capacity as poojari and the public are allowed to worship and prasadams are being distributed to them.

3. On the basis of the above pleadings, the trial court has framed four issues and held that the suit temple is not a private temple of the plaintiff, and consequently held that the orders of the defendant cannot be set aside, and dismissed the suit.

4. Now, the main question crops up about the nature of the suit temple. It has to be considered in the light of the origin of the temple, the manner in which its affairs are managed, the nature and extent of the gift received by it, the rights exercised by the devotees in regard to the worship therein, and the consciousness of the manager and consciousness of the devotees themselves as to the public character of the temple.

.5. The term “temple” is defined under Sec.6(2) of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Act, 1959 (hereinafter called the Act“) ‘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.”

.6. The Bench of this Court had an occasion to consider the question whether a particular temple is public temple or private one, in the decision reported in Chennammal v. Commissioner, H.R. & C.E., (1973)2 M.L.J. 442 which has held as follows:

.“The main characteristic of a public temple is that it is intended for the use of the public or a section thereof. On the other hand private temples are intended for the worship by the members of the family of the donor exclusively. In the case of a public temple the public would be entitled to worship therein as a matter of right, while in the case of a private temple such worship by persons other than the founder’s family would be by the sufferance of the latter. The mere fact that outsiders are allowed to worship in a temple cannot necessarily mean that the temple was dedicated to the public, as no Hindu will ever prohibit strangers from offering worship to the deity enshrined in his private temple. In all such cases worship by outsiders is referable to the leave and licence granted