The burden of proof lies on the party claiming a temple to be private, and the general presumption is that a temple is public until proven otherwise.

This appeal has been preferred against the Judgment and Decree dated 30.04.1996 made in O.S.No.285 of 1996 on the file of the Sub-Court, Salem.

2. The appellants herein were the plaintiffs in the suit. The suit was filed against the order dated, 11.04.1986 passed by the Commissioner, H.R & C.E., Chennai, the first respondent herein in A.P.No.49 of 1982, seeking a decree for setting aside the order, and for permanent injunction, restraining the respondents herein not to interfere with the management of the affairs of the suit temple.

3. According to the appellants, the first appellant is a company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, being managed by its Board of Directors, elected as per Rules and Regulations of the Company and represented by its elected Secretary. The first appellant has stated that the Company is a welfare organization, started for the protection and promotion of the trading interest of its members, as per its Articles and Memorandum of Association and bye laws, which provides inter alia, for the management of the affairs of the suit temple, owned by it. In the plaint, the appellants have further averred that the suit temple called "Kaliamman Temple" was constructed and owned by the appellants association in a portion of the land belonged to it, situated at Sandaipettai Main Road, Sevvapet, Salem, that about 120 years ago, there was a snake putru (ant hill) in the aforesaid land, which was worshipped by the members of the first appellant-association. In or about 1958, at the time of re-survey and settlement, the trustees appointed by the appellants association, by virtue of the resolution, dated 23.05.1958, 1) Sundaram Chettiar, s/o. Srirangam Chettiar, 2) Arumugam Chettiar, s/o. Manickam Chettiar and 3) one Alwar Naidu were appointed by the first appellant to look after the entire management and affairs of the suit temple.

4. According to the appellants, during the enquiry of Survey Resettlement, the Survey Department officials wrongly noted the name of the trustees in the settlement and pattas, by quoting the fathers name of the said persons wrongly, due to clerical mistake, though the persons, then acting on behalf of the first appellants association were only the aforesaid members. Soon after the mistake came to the knowledge of the first appellant, steps were taken by the association before the Estate Manager, Salem, and it was transferred in the name of the first appellant, by virtue of order, dated 211. 1973. According to the appellants, the Association had put up constructions and installed idols of Madurai Veeran and also Sannathis of Vinayagar, Anchaneyar and Natarajar and three years prior to the date of filing of the suit, Vimana Gopuram of the main deity was also constructed by the first appellant. "Mahakumbabishekam" was performed on a grand scale by raising huge funds collected from the members of the first appellant.

5. According to the appellants, there was no dedication or any public contribution for the suit temple, nor any hundial is installed and no money was collected from the public, hence, it is a private temple. The appellants have averred that the Assistant Commissioner, H.R & C.E., (Admn) Salem – 4, pursuant to his proceeding had sent a notice, calling upon the first appellant to hand over the temple administration to the Executive Officer, the third respondent herein, for which the first appellant sent a reply notice on 22.09.1978 and also filed a petition on 010. 1978 before the Assistant Commissioner, Salem to drop the Proceedings in ROC.11538/78/A1/ dated 78. The Assistant Commissioner, H.R. & C.E., Salem, the second respondent herein, by his order, dated 23.02.1979, directed the appellants to file a petition to the Deputy Commissioner, H.R & C.E., under Section 63 (a) of the H.R. & C.E., Act, for seeking appropriate relief, stating that the second respondent has not been empowered to act under Section 63 (a) of the said Act.

6. The first appellant took