Determination of the temple as public or private shrine.

RAMAMURTI, J. :- This Letters Patent Appeal is from the Judgment of Venkatadri, J. The appellant herein who as the Jaghirdar of Jadaya Goundan Jagir in Kallakurichi taluk. South Arcot, Dt, filed the suit, O. S. No. 24 of 1957, Sub Court, Cuddalore, to set aside the order of the first respondent (the Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Board) declaring that the shrine known as "Chinna Thirupathi" Srinivasa Perumal temple situate in the limits of the aforesaid jagir is a temple as defined in S. 6(17) of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, Madras Act XIX of 1951. The jagir is situate in the Kalroyan hills and consists of about 40 villages. One of the villages is known by the name of Chinna Thirucath and there is a shrine and the deity therein is known as Srinivasa Perumal which the plaintiff claims as the family deity of the jagirdars. His case is that the shrine and the deity installed therein belong to the plaintiff and his family, that the temple was being maintained out of the funds of the jagir and that it has never been dedicated for public worship. The Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Board, differing from the Deputy Commissioner, held that the shrine in question is a public temple and is used as a place of public worship, clearly satisfying the tests specified in S. 6(17) of the Act. This view has been affirmed by the learned Subordinate Judge of Cuddalore as well as by Venkatadri, J.

2. The only point that arises in the present appeal is whether the suit shrine is a temple as defined in Sec. 6(17) of Madras Act XIX of 1951. It must be proved that the place was used and is being used for public religious worship and that it has been dedicated to and for the benefit of or used as of right by the Hindu community or arty Section thereof as a place of religious worship. The origin of the temple is unknown and there is no need of dedication. The plaintiff himself has not adduced any evidence as to who founded the temple. Admittedly, he does not know who built the temple and no records deleting to the construction of the temple have been filed. Even though the witnesses examined on the side of the plaintiff are very old people, they are not in a position to give any useful evidence as to the origin of the temple, when and how it was built, with the result that we have necessarily to deal with the matter as a very ancient temple whose origin is unknown. Further, it respect of (temples in our parts (Madras State) unlike those in Malabar and Bengal, there is a strong presumption that the temples are public temples.

3. The available and relevant information about the temple in question is what is contained in the Gazetteer of the South Arcot Dt. published in 1906 (which is marked as Ex. B-1) at page 334 and which is as follows :

"The temple at Chinna Thiropati is not architecturally remarkable being a plain stone erection destitute of ornament but it has a great reputation, even among the dwellers in the low country and the annual car festival there in December or January is largely attended by the people from the plains as well as the Malayalis ...... The shrine like others in similarly wild spots, has a reputation for granting success to those who make vows to it and is a favorite place for the ceremony of the first shaving of the heads of Hindu children. The God, as has been mentioned, is Venkatesa (or Srinivasa) Perumal and is identical with the Deity at the famous shrine at Tirupati in North Arcot. Hence, the name Chinna Thirupathi."

From this description it is quite evident that the temple is a popular one, in which the right of worship is not confined to the family of the plaintiff alone but, on the other hand, the temple has always been and is accessible to all the villagers living in that locality who have been holding the temple in great veneration, the deity being considered by them to be a replica of the famous deity Lord Venkateswara in Thirumalai Hi