(1) of the Act. By order dated 23.4.1992, the first defendant dismissed the appeal. The said order was communicated to the plaintiff on 25.6.1992. (vi) According to the plaintiff, the appellate authority, the first defendant, for the first time considered all the documents and has given his own findings without and evidence. The first defendant has not properly appreciated the scope of definition of section 6(2) of the Hindu Religious and Endowment Board Act. The first defendant failed to see that even in houses, after pooja, sacred water and Thualsi are being given. It is based on Hindu custom and it cannot be taken as ingredient to hold that the place in question will become a public temple. The first defendant also failed to see that simply because in the printed pamphlet the devotees have been asked to contribute for the conduct of the ceremony, it will not amount to temple being construed as public temple and it will not amount to dedication. The first defendant also failed to see that there is no fixed working hours for the temple and the public cannot worship in the temple as a matter of right. In these circumstances, the plaintiff filed the suit. 5. The brief cas