650 of 1882 passed against the said Kuppaiyan the property was sold by public auction and purchased by Thoguluva Thirumalayyan, the appellants ancestor, for a sum of Rs.
The appellant thereupon filed a petition for leave to appeal to this Court and submitted that the value of the subject matter of dispute in the District Court as also in appeal in the High Court was more than Rs.
There was evidence that the shops subsequently companystructed as aforesaid were let out to tenants for a number of years and property taxes were levied thereon by the Madhurai Municipality, presumably on their rateable value.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated January 11, 1961 of the Madras High Court in S. C. Petition No.
The appellants case was that in execution of the decree in Suit No.
130.36nP. According to him the half yearly tax would be equivalent to one months rent and on that basis the annual rental value would companye to Rs.
1,126 6 0 in 1950 and to Rs.
The original mandapam was thereafter improved upon and some additional structures e.g., shops and other companystructions were added, the expenses for such repairs and additions having been met by the descendants of the said Thoguluva Thirumalayyan, and therefore the property belonged to and was an alienable private property of the family.
1,672.32nP in 1961.
V. Rangam, for the respondent.
On the other hand, the case of the respondents in their written statement was that the property was a public temple for public religious worship and that the allegation of the plaintiff that it was a private property capable of alienation was false and misleading.
20,000/ and that the judgment of the High Court having reversed the judgment and decree of the Trial Court he was entitled to leave under Art.
1,060/ .
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
The said application was by an order of the High Court companyverted into a suit.
The case of the appellant was accepted by the Trial Court but was rejected by the High Court and the High Court held that the property was a public temple within the meaning of Madras Act 19 of 195 1.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Shelat, J. This appeal by special leave is against the order,, of the High Court of Madras dated January 11, 1961 refusing the certificate under Art.
29 South Masi Street, Madurai, wherein the idol of Sri Srinivasaparumal and certain other idols were located companystituted a temple within the meaning of the said Act, the appellant filed an application in the District Court for a declaration that the said premises were private property and for an order setting aside the said decision.
230 of 1964.
133 1 a and b of the Constitution.
The authorities appointed under the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, Madras Act 11 of 1927 having held that the premises No.
94 0 6 and for the half year ending March 31, 1961 it was Rs.
165 of 1960.
Ganapathy Iyer and R. Thiagarajan, for the appellant.
