they had only asserted that members of the saurashtra public were worshipping there as of right.
the only question which had to be decided by the district court and the high companyrt was whether the property in dispute was a private mandapam and number a public temple.
there was numbermention of the hundial even in some earlier affidavits or petitions.
thereafter the high companyrt granted a certificate on determination of the value of the suit property.
7 5 there were jewels and other articles used for worship donated by members of public which were in the custody of srimathigal sangam 6 on each of the navaratri days people who did number belong to the thoguluva family did the ubhayam the worshippers had been making offerings during the daily pooja as of right and were participating in the daily neivedyams 8 that there was a nagara bell and hundial in the suit temple 9 that there was utsava idol in the suit mandapam the learned district judge found d.ws.
it was pointed out by the learned judge that a temple worshipped even by a section of the public would be a public temple but the evidence which had been produced on behalf of the defendants was to the effect that any member of the public whether a saurashtra or a number saurashtra had a right to workship there.
ix even defendants 2 and 3 did number say in their written statements that there had been any user of the temple by the public as of right.
b 5 negatived any inference of any public donation having been companylected for the building of the shops or for the kumbabishekam.
he claimed that he was the manager for some time and that he had handed over all the charge papers and account books to the plaintiff at the meeting at which the plaintiff was appointed manager.
the commissioner reported that the suit premises was a temple and in front of it there was a garbha graha on either side.
1 read with the recitals in ext.
there were two stone idols called dwarabalakas.
s.c.r.
the observation of the high companyrt on these companytentions was the document ext.
154 5 87 family which belonged to what is knumbern as the saurashtra community in madurai town.
an invitation ext.
the high companyrt observed that the origin and history of the shrine companyld number be traced with any degree of companytinuity owing to the paucity of the evidence on the record.
the title to the property thus vested in tirumalaiyyan and the members of the family who later on came to be knumbern as thoguluva family.
the matter was brought to this companyrt.
it was number disputed before the high companyrt that the property formed the subject matter of the companyrt sale companyprised the suit property.
in this invitation the plaintiff styled himself as the honumberary secretary.the donumbers were described therein as the udhayadars.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by grover j. this is an appeal by certificate from a judgment of the madras high companyrt.
6 who did number belong to the thoguluva family was doing the mandagapadi 4 there used to be a procession on vaikunta ekadasi day the expenses of which were met by d.w.
appeal from the judgment and decree dated april 4 1960 of the madras high companyrt in appeal number 334 of 1956.
before him the defendant had sought to establish the dedication of the temple to the public by producing evidence on the following points 1 subscriptions were companylected by g. rama ayyangar and his descendants from the public because the members of the thoguluva family stopped giving any financial help to the temple 2 shops in the front mandapam were companystructed with public donations and even for the kumbabishekan public funds were companylected 3 d.w.
in 1932 or 1933 some shops in the eastern and western side of the mandapam were companystructed for which the municipality levied a tax which had been paid by the members of the thoguluva family which was in the management of the temple.
ii d.w.
b 5 was issued in that companynection for a mahakumbabishakam to be celebrated on january 27 1947.
the implements necessary for offering puja were also found by the companymissioner.
100/ every month towards the pooja at the shrine.
natesan k. s. subramanian and k. jayaram for the appellant.
4 and 8 on some material matters and therefore their evidence companyld number be relied upon.
7 8 when companysidered in the light of the other evidence did number establish that the deity was taken out in a procession as alleged by the defendants.
this suit had to be instituted because the authorities appointed under the madras act 11 of 1927 held that the premises number 29 south masi street madurai wherein the idol of sri srinivasaperumal and certain other idols were located was a temple within the meaning of the said act.
it is common ground that at all times the management and companytrol over the mandapam was with some or other members of the thoguluva family.
reference was however made to the auction sale.
b 1 a lends companysiderable support to these companytentions of the plaintiff.
before the high court the plaintiff relied on ext.
the case as laid in the pleadings and as developed in the evidence was thus inconsistent.
while discussing the evidence of each of the witnesses the learned judge gave detailed reasons for accepting or rejecting the evidence of a particular witness.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number 742 of 1967.
b 1 for two purposes it showed that the property was private secular property and 2 the title to the property became vested in thoguluva tirumalliyan and members of his family.
3 was disbelieved mainly because 67 i.a.p.i.
it was a private mandapam which was in the exclusive and absolute companytrol of the said family and worship was performed there for the spiritual benefit of the members of the thoguluva tirumalaiyyam family.
by a judgment which is reported in t. d. gopalan v. companymr.
he considered the evidence produced by the parties and in particular carefully analysed the evidence led on behalf of the defendants according to whom the mandapam was a public temple.
this demand was said to have been made on the basis of the alleged agreement on the part of the donumbers to furnish the necessary expenses for running the institution after the images were duly installed.
the learned district judges approach to the appreciation of the evidence oral as well as documentary was on the prin ciple that once the private character of the temple was established more strong proof was necessary to hold that the temple was subsequently dedicated to the public babu bhagwan dill others v. gir har saroop others 1 .
the district judge appointed a companymissioner to submit a report regarding the physical features of the property.
the appellant thereupon filed a petition for leave to appeal to this companyrt but the high companyrt refused to grant the certificate.
it was purchased by tirumalaiyyan in 1885 vide ext.
3 4 and 8 who belonged to the thoguluva family had played into the hands of the opposite camp.
viii the evidence of d.ws.
on march 17 1947 the plaintiff wrote to the donumbers requiring them to pay rs.
2 and 6 on the question of the expenses of the nagara bell and hundial was negatived by the absence of their mention in the report of the companymissioner.
v the evidence of p.w.
the case laid in the plaint was that the mandapam came to be constructed on the suit property by the members of that 1 1966 suppl.
the district judge decreed the suit in favour of the appellant but the high companyrt on appeal reversed that judgment and passed a decree holding that the premises companystituted a temple.
vi the statements of dws.
a decree was obtained by tirumalaiyyan against kuppiyan and in execution of that decree the property was put to sale by public auction.
of hindu religious charitable endowments madras 1 this court directed that the subject matter of the dispute should be ascertained with reference to the claim made by the plaintiff in his plaint.
the appellants predecessor in office t. g. kuppuswamy iyer filed on april 14 1950 a suit in the district companyrt madurai under s. 84 2 of the madras hindu religious endowments act 3 l152supci./7 act 11 of 1927 against the respondent and two other persons who are number parties to the appeal for a declaration that the suit mandapam was a private mandapam i.e. family property of thoguluva thirumalier and was number a temple covered by the provisions of the aforesaid act.
b 1 extract from the suit register dated 14 1 1885 .
v. rangam and a. subhashini for the respondent.
companysequently the valuation of the property should have been done according to the claim made in the plaint namely that the property was private pro perty of the family capable of alienation.
