The main legal point established is the public nature of the temple and the necessity for a scheme to settle uncertainties in its management.

John Wallis, C.J.

1. The plaintiffs in this case sued under Section 539 of the old Code of Civil Procedure for the settlement of a scheme for the management of the suit temple, alleging that it is a public Hindu temple and that the management thereof is vested in the Ilayathakudi Kovil Nagara-thars, as certain families of Nattukotai Chetties residing near the suit temple are styled, and that management by so large a body has become impracticable. They also allege that if, as is contended by the defendants, the management is already vested in some of the defendants as trustees, the necessity for a scheme is equally made out.

2. The Subordinate Judge has found that the temple is a public Hindu temple and that the suit accordingly lies under the section. This is the first point contested by the appellants, who contend that it is a private temple owned by the Nattukottai Chetties or Nagarathars of the locality, whereas the case for the respondents is that the temple is an ancient one founded by the local rulers before the advent of the Nattukottai Chetties to Ilayathakudi. The tradition among the Nattukotai Chetties, who are now so well-known in connection with the money-lending and banking business carried on by them in India and further East, is that they originally came from Tanjore, and the fact that they all style themselves Ilayathakudi Naga-ratbars suggests, as the Subordinate Judge points out, that their first settlement in the Madura District was at Ilayathakudi. Some of them afterwards removed to other places in the neighbourhood and became connected with other temples so that, while they are all known as Ilayathakudi Nagarathars, the families whose principal place of worship is the suit temple at Ilayathakudi are known as Ilayathakudi Kovil Nagarathars. The same inference is supported by the fact that each of the several branches, although known by the name of the temple to which it is attached, still maintains some connection with the suit temple.

3. In these circumstances there does not seem to be any foundation for the suggestion that the temple was founded by the families who are now known as Ilayathakudi Kovil Nagarathars or for their claims that the temple is a private institution belonging to them. It is impossible to say at this distance of time who was the founder of the temple. The plaintiffs rely on the fact that, as mentioned in the Inam Register, the Hindivi accounts of 1801 showed that the temple was in possession of certain inam villages before the establishment of British rule, and the fact that there are certain statues of Ruling Chiefs as it is said in the temple to show that it was founded by former rulers for the use of the public, and that the local Nattukottai Chetties afterwards acquired the management of it as they did of the numerous other institutions in the district which are referred to in Exhibit A by reason of their wealth and benefactions. The plaintiffs also rely on the fact that the temple is open for public worship and that the rites and ceremonies are such as are observed in public temples. The grant of numerous inam lands to the temple is strong evidence of its public character, Muhammad Jafar v. Muhammad Ibrahim 24 M. 243, as is also the character of the worship, Peesapati Sita-ramanujachariv.Kanduri Yellamma 30 lnd. Cas. 822 : 18 M.L.T. 42 : 2 L.W. 858, and in the plaint the Kiranipatty Amman temple which is admittedly a public institution, is alleged to be a temple subsidiary to the suit temple, and this contention is not traversed in the written statement, and it is proved that the funds of the two institutions are mixed up and not kept separate. On the evidence, therefore, we agree with the Subordinate Judge that the temple has been open to the Hindu public, and that the action of the managers in endeavouring to exclude or excluding two local zemindars who had had quarrels about property with the temple is no sufficient proof that it was a private temple. It may be that a ca