1. The Subordinate Judge finds that the temple in question, though it might have originally belonged to the tarwad, has since, in the course of time, attained a quasi-public character. It is contended by appellants pleader that the facts found do not warrant the conclusion arrived at. This contention appears to us to be well-founded. In the plaint there is a distinct averment that the temple belonged to the tarwad. It is also in evidence that for the maintenance of a member of the tarwad, the income derived from the Devaswom property was taken into account, and in that suit 1st plaintiff was a party.

2. The Subordinate Judge refers to the fact that during the temple festival a horse is exhibited at the expense of the Palghat Rajah, and that the Cochin Rajah makes certain offer-rings to the idol in the temple. It must also be remembered that the family was originally that of a Naduvali or Provincial Chief. These facts referred to by the Subordinate Judge are not in themselves conclusive. There must be clear and strong proof of subsequent dedication to the public if the-institution originally belonged to the family.

3. If there was nothing more in the evidence, we should consider