The Subordinate Judge on companysidering the evidence of defendants witness Nos.
He observed that it is incorrect to draw an inference of dedication to the public merely from the fact of user by the public.
Appeal from the Judgment and Decree dated the 18 8 1965 of the Mysore High Court in M.F.A. No.
He further held that there was numberevidence before the Deputy Commissioner justifying his order which was affirmed by the Commissioner that it was a public temple.
A 13 which was made part of the decree Ext.
Accordingly, he allowed the alternative declaration asked for by the plaintiffs and modified the order of June 12, 1961 made by the Commissioner affirming the order of the Deputy Commissioner dated January 17, 1961.
T. Desai, K.N. Bhat and R.B. Datar for the Appellants.
There was also a prayer for cancellation or modification of the order of Commissioner dated June 12, 1961 affirming that of the Deputy Commissioner that this was a public temple.
CIVIL APPLELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
Narayan Nettar for Respondent.
106 of 1961, in the companyrt of the Subordinate Judge, South Kanara, for a declaration that the temple was a private temple and number a temple as defined in section 6 17 of the Act or, in the alternative, for a declaration that it was a denominational or sectional temple belonging to the Goud Saraswat Brahmin companymunity of Gurpur.
2176 of 1968.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by GUPTA, J. The only question disputed in this appeal is whether a temple, known as Varadaraj Venkataramana Temple at Gutput in Mangalore Taluk, in Karnataka, is a public temple or a temple belonging to Goud Saraswat Brahmin Community of Gurpur.
In a proceeding under section 57 of the Madras Hindu Reli gious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951 hereinafter referred to as the Act , the Deputy Commissioner by his order dated January 17, 1961 held that the temple was a public temple and the Commissioner on appeal affirmed the order of the Deputy Commissioner on June 12, 1961.
Thereaf ter the appellants who are the trustees of the temple insti tuted a suit, O.S. No.
From the deci sion of the trial companyrt, the respondents preferred an appeal to the High Court.
341 of 1964.
