(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 case of the defendants are as follows: (i) According to the defendants, the suit temple is not a private temple. The temple will fall within the meaning and definition of a temple under section 6(2) of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Act. It is the place of public worship and a religious institution under section 6

(10) of the Act. The plaintiff has collected public funds for the construction of the temple. The plaintiff, who is the Archagar of the temple, is allowing the Hindu public other than the residents of the teachers colony to worship in the temple as a matter of right. The plaintiff, as a Archakar, is also distributing prasadams to the outsider, public and receiving the kanikkai offered. The public are entering the temple as a matter of right. Therefore, the temple is dedicated to the public. The contribution received for the construction of the temple and accounts prepared by the private auditors would clearly proves the dedication. No where in the accounts there is a mention of the name of association but all accounts and contributions stands in the name of the Deity which clearly proves the dedication. It is a place of public worship and a religious institution under section 6(18) of the Act. (ii) According to the defendants, the averment that a box for collection of contribution from the residents of locality is false and it is only a Hundial and that any container collecting money is a Hundial. The orders passed by the defendants in O.A.No.31/88 and A.P.No.89/90 were exercised only under the provisions of section 63(1) and 69(1) of the Act. The orders were passed based on records and facts placed by the plaintiff. The order of the defendants are in accordance with law based on the oral and documentary evidences. (iii) According to the defendants, tickets were also printed for collection of donations for Sri Ramanavami festival and a fixed amount of Rs.10/-was collected from the public. This will clearly proves that there is dedication. Not only the residents of the teachers colony, but also the public, who enter the temple for worship offered their donations in the Hundi. There is public participation in the management of the temple. When the property has not been conveyed in favour of the temple by any document, conferring right on them to make use of it for the purpose of construction of the temple, the contention of the temple cannot be relied upon. In Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Act, a public temple is clearly defined and there is no need to define a private temple. The defendants have properly appreciated the scope of section 6

(20) of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Act that the finding and the reasoning are based on law and facts. In these circumstances, the defendants prayed for dismissal of t