Varadachariar, J.

1. By an order dated 3rd February 1936, we directed the trial Court to receive such additional evidence as the parties may tender as we were inclined to think that on account of some misapprehension, the whole available evidence had not been placed before the Court on the previous occasion. The learned District Judge has now admitted such evidence as the petitioner adduced, but as he thought that the additional evidence did not affect the substance of the previous judgment, he has stated that he considers it unnecessary to record a fresh finding. The additional evidence has not carried the petitioner very far. Part of it only serves to establish that the petitioners family which is now living far away from the temple in question was at one time living within f mile or a mile of the temple. Reliance has been placed on behalf of the petitioner on certain statements in the report of a Commissioner who was appointed by the lower Court to inspect the locality and make a report, It appears from that report that there is no regular foot path from the public road to the temple and there arena shops or bazars in the neighbourhood where worshippers can have the usual