Kuppuswamy v. The Commissioner, H.R. & C.E., Admn. Department, Chennai – 600 034

defendants from interfering with the administration of the suittemple. 4. The brief case of the plaintiff in the suit is asfollows:- (i)According to the plaintiff, Sri Rama Anjaneya Templesituated in the Teachers' Colony, Royapettah, Chennai is a privatetemple. The origin of the institution in question is of very recentone. The institution in question is actually located in the privateland belonging to the layout of Teachers' Colony, Royapettah, Chennai– 14. It was plotted out into 19 plots. A portion in the entirelay out was set apart for the common community purpose. A portionwas left apart for the purpose of laying road. The teachers'colony consisted of teachers, who were working in Hindu High School,who jointly purchased the plots and plotted out the entire area. (ii) According to the plaintiff, the residents ofteachers' colony have formed an association known as "Teaches ColonyCultural Association" in which, the residents of Teachers' colony aremembers. Similarly, they have also formed " Teachers' ColonyYoungmen's Association' in which, persons residing in teachers'colony are holding membership and taking active part in theactivities of the association. Though there are two associations, asfar as the temple in question is concerned, it has been establishedand maintained by the said two associations out of the funds ofthe associations. (iii) According to the plaintiff, the said temple has beenconstructed at the end of Teachers' colony which has a blind roadend. Even in the lay out, this area was meant for communitypurposes. First, a small deity of Anjaneya was put in a thatchedroof and it was improved stage by stage. The temple does not own anyproperty. The site, over which the temple has been constructed,belongs to the residents of teachers' colony, who are living in thatarea. (iv) According to the plaintiff, the temple has beenestablished and being administered and mostly worshipped by theresidents of teachers' colony. In fact, each day, each house iscontributing Rs.10/-. Members of teachers' colony have been in themanagement and administration of the temple. It was only theresidents of teachers' colony, who have been managing andadministering the affairs of the temple from time to time.S.T.Bashyam Iyengar, Secretary of the temple committee, who is theretired teacher from Hindu High School, is doing the poojas in thetemple honorarily and he has been taking only certain amounts towardsthe actual expenses. He alone attends to the poojas and otherservices of the temple both in the morning and in the evening and onfestival occasions. The temple is under his lock and key. He is https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ incharge of the entire temple affairs. The said S.T.Bashyam Iyengaropens and closes the temple in the mornings and again opens thetemple in the evenings and closes in the late evenings. There isno fixed time for the temple. The temple is opened according to theconvenience of the residents of teachers' colony and mainly it isonly the said Bashyam Iyengar, who controls the times according tohis convenience. The public are allowed to worship in the templeonly when the temple is opened. There is no fixed hours. There isno dedication of any property to deity in question nor there is adedication for any public worship. The public cannot enter andworship in the temple as a matter of right. The temple is notintended for the benefit of the public. The temple is not used asa place of public religious worship. Further, according to theappellant, Bashyam Iyengar has put up a small box in the templewhere the residents of the locality put their contribution formeeting the expenses. According to the appellant, the temple has noDwajasthambam, Rajagopuram and Prakaram. The temple does not haveingredients of a public temple. (v) According to the plaintiff, when the Hindu Religiousand Endowment Board wrote a letter dated 14.10.1988, calling uponthem to show cause why trustees should not be appointed, theSecretary sent a reply dated 20.10.1988 clearly stating that thetemple in question is a private temple and that it is outside thescope of provisions of Hindu Religious and Endowment Act. Theplaintiff filed Original Application in O.A.No.31 of 1988 before theDeputy Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Endowment Board,Administration Department, Chennai, the second defendant, undersection 63(a) of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Endowment BoardAct. The Secretary examined himself as a witness and has marked Exs.A-1 to A-9. The Deputy Commissioner passed a cryptic order in onepara dismissing the application. As against the order of the DeputyCommissioner, the plaintiff preferred appeal before the firstdefendant under section 69(1) of the Act. By order dated 23.4.1992,the first defendant dismissed the appeal. The said order wascommunicated 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 documentsand has given his own findings without and evidence. The firstdefendant has not properly appreciated the scope of definition ofsection 6(2) of the Hindu Religious and Endowment Board Act. Thefirst defendant failed to see that even in houses, after pooja,sacred water and Thualsi are being given. It is based on Hinducustom and it cannot be taken as ingredient to hold that the place inquestion will become a public temple. The first defendant alsofailed to see that simply because in the printed pamphlet thedevotees have been asked to contribute for the conduct of theceremony, it will not amount to temple being construed as publictemple and it will not amount to dedication. The first defendant https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ also failed to see that there is no fixed working hours for thetemple and the public cannot worship in the temple as a matter ofright. 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 aprivate temple. The temple will fall within the meaning anddefinition of a temple under section 6(2) of the Hindu Religious andCharitable Endowment Act. It is the place of public worship and areligious institution under section 6(10) of the Act. Theplaintiff has collected public funds for the construction of thetemple. The plaintiff, who is the Archagar of the temple, isallowing the Hindu public other than the residents of the teachers'colony to worship in the temple as a matter of right. Theplaintiff, as a Archakar, is also distributing prasadams to theoutsider, public and receiving the kanikkai offered. The public areentering the temple as a matter of right. Therefore, the temple isdedicated to the public. The contribution received for theconstruction of the temple and accounts prepared by the privateauditors would clearly proves the dedication. No where in theaccounts there is a mention of the name of association but allaccounts and contributions stands in the name of the Deity whichclearly proves the dedication. It is a place of public worship and areligious institution under section 6(18) of the Act. (ii) According to the defendants, the averment that a boxfor collection of contribution from the residents of locality isfalse and it is only a Hundial and that any container collectingmoney is a Hundial. The orders passed by the defendants inO.A.No.31/88 and A.P.No.89/90 were exercised only under theprovisions of section 63(1) and 69(1) of the Act. The orders werepassed based on records and facts placed by the plaintiff. The orderof the defendants are in accordance with law based on the oral anddocumentary evidences.(iii) According to the defendants, tickets were alsoprinted for collection of donations for Sri Ramanavami festival and afixed amount of Rs.10/- was collected from the public. This willclearly proves that there is dedication. Not only the residents ofthe teachers' colony, but also the public, who enter the temple forworship offered their donations in the Hundi. There is publicparticipation in the management of the temple. When the propertyhas not been conveyed in favour of the temple by any document,conferring right on them to make use of it for the purpose ofconstruction of the temple, the contention of the temple cannot berelied upon. In Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Act, apublic temple is clearly defined and there is no need to define aprivate temple. The defendants have properly appreciated the scopeof section 6(20) of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Act https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ that the finding and the reasoning are based on law and facts. Inthese circumstances, the defendants prayed for dismissal of thesuit. 6. Before the trial court, on the side the plaintiff,P.W.1 was examined and 18 documents, Exs. A-1 to A-18 were markedand on the side of the defendants, D.W.1 was examined and nodocument was marked. 7. The trial court after taking into consideration, theoral and documentary evidences of both sides, dismissed the suit. 8. Aggrieved over the judgment and decree of the trialcourt, the plaintiff, has filed the above appeal. 9. Heard Mr.R.Subramanian, learned counsel appearing forthe appellant and Mr.T.Chandrasekar, learned Special GovernmentPleader (H.R. & C.E.) for the respondents. 10. On a careful consideration of the materials availableon record and on the submissions made by both the counsels, thefollowing points arise for consideration in the above appeal:- " (i) Whether the suit temple is a pu8blic orprivate temple?(ii) Whether the appellant/plaintiff is entitledfor decree for declaration and injunction as prayed forin the suit ?"11. The appellant/plaintiff filed the statutory suitunder section 70 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and CharitableEndowment Act 22 of 1959 challenging the order passed by the firstrespondent/first defendant, confirming the order passed by thesecond respondent/second defendant holding that the suit temple isthe public temple and rejecting the appellant's claim that the templeis a private temple. Originally, the suit was filed by one BashyamIyenger in the capacity of Secretary of Sri Rama Anjaneya Temple.Pending suit, the said Bashyam Iyenger died and his son, Kuppusamy,in the same capacity as Secretary, was impleaded as the plaintiff inthe suit. 12. According to the appellant/plaintiff, the suit templeis actually located in the private land belonging to the lay out ofTeachers' colony, Royapettah, Chennai. The origin of theinstitution in question is of very recent one. The teachers'colony consisted of teachers, who were working in Hindu High School,who jointly purchased the plots and plotted out the entire area. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 13 According to the appellant, the residents of teachers'colony have formed two associations namely, "Teachers' ColonyCultural Association" and " Teachers' Colony Youngmen'sAssociation'. As far as the temple in question is concerned, it hasbeen established and maintained by the said two associations outof the funds of the associations. The temple was improved slowlystage by stage and the temple does not own any property.14. According to the appellant, S.T.Bashyam Iyengar,Secretary of the temple committee, who was the retired teacher fromHindu High School, was doing the poojas in the temple honorarily andhe was being assisted by his son and other residents of theteachers' colony and none else. The temple was managed by BashyamIyengar and it was under his lock and key. According to theappellant, there is no fixed time for the temple. The temple isopened according to the convenience of the residents of teachers'colony. There is no dedication of any property to the deity inquestion nor there is a dedication for any public worship.According to the appellant, public cannot enter and worship in thetemple as a matter of right. The temple is not intended for thebenefit of the public. The temple is not used as a place of publicreligious worship. Further, according to the appellant,S.T.Bashyam Iyengar had put up a small box in the temple wherethe residents of the locality put their contribution for meeting theexpenses. According to the appellant, the temple has noDwajasthambam, Rajagopuram and Prakaram. The temple does not haveingredients of a public temple. In these circumstance, the appellantcontended that the suit temple is a private temple. 15. Based on the report of the Inspector of HinduReligious and Charitable Endowment Board dated 04.08.1988, the HinduReligious and Charitable Endowment Department sent Ex.A-1 show causenotice dated 6.8.1988 to the appellant/plaintiff stating that thedepartment has proposed to appoint trustees. Thereafter, theappellant/plaintiff filed Original Application in O.A.No.31 of 1988before the second respondent under section 63(a) of the Tamil NaduHindu Religious and Endowment Board Act to declare that the templeis not a temple as laid down under section 63(a) of the Act. 16. Before the second respondent, the Secretary of thetemple committee was examined and 9 documents were marked. TheInspector of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department wasexamined as C.W.1. The second respondent came to the conclusionthat the public are allowed to worship in the temple without anyrestrictions and the temple in question is having managed by theresidents of teachers' colony Royapettah might have containedpeople of different communities. Therefore, the temple is not aprivate temple. The second respondent ultimately dismissed theapplication. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

17. Aggrieved over the same, the appellant/plaintiffpreferred appeal in A.P.No.89/90 on the file of firstrespondent/first defendant relying upon the evidence of C.W.1, whodeposed that there was a Hundial and there is distribution ofPrasadam like sacred water and Thulasi after pooja to theworshippers. The first respondent also relied upon a printedpamphlet at the time of consecration ceremony, which has beenmarked as Ex.A-10. At the end of the notice, a request wasmade to the devotees to make contribution for the purpose ofconsecration ceremony. 18. In Ex.A-10 pamphlet, it has been stated as follows: "gf;jh;fs; midtUk; fye;J bfhz;L j';fshy; ,ad;wbghUSjtpia mspj;J rpwg;ghf elj;jp itj;J nkw;go vk;bgUkhd;fpUigf;F ghj;jpuh;fshf MFk;go gpuhh;j;jpf;fpnwhk;".19. Though it has been mentioned in Ex.A-10 pamphletthat 'gf;jh;fs;' the first respondent construed the said word as'public'. It is pertinent to note that in Ex.A-10 pamphlet the word'bghJ kf;fs;' has not been mentioned. While so, the firstrespondent/first defendant took it as public and found that thepublic also contributed for the temple. 20. The first respondent found failed to prove that thetemple committee consists of a group of individuals belonging tocertain family and their descendants and ultimately, came to theconclusion that the temple is a public temple and dismissed theappeal.21. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant, in supportof his contention, relied upon the following judgments:(i) 2009(16) SCC 409 (G.Jayalakshmi and others v.Arulmighu Pazkhikanchiya Vinayagar Trust and its temple), whereinthe Hon'ble Apex court held that a temple may be declared as publictemple inter alia when a grant is made in favour of the public by theowner of the property although the temple is constructed by aprivate person, or if the temple is constructed on Government landand if the public in general have a right to worship the deity ascontra distinguished from the right of worship in a temple which isconfined to a family on community.(ii) 1975(2) MLJ 310 (Thanumalayaperumal and others v.The Commissioner, H.R. & C.E. Department, Madras and others), whereinthe Division Bench of this court held as follows:- https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ "8 (a) The existence of Moolasthanam, Mahamandapam,Prakaram, idols of chief and other deities, utsavamurthi,daily poojas, special poojas and procession during festiveoccasions, worship by the local public belonging todifferent communities without any let or hindrance, areall factors which give the impression that the temple is apublic one.8(b) If the temple is being used as a 'place ofpublic religious worship if there is no dedication of thetemple to and for the benefit of the Hindu community orany section thereof, if it is not used generally by theHindu community as of right as a place of public religiousworship, if there is no hundial and no collections aremade from the public for the performance of any festivalconnected with the temple as for its maintenance and nomember of the public has come forward to say that he hascontributed any amount for the maintenance or any of therelated poojas to the deity therein, the temple will notbe a public temple, but a private one.8(c) The origin of the temple, the manner in which itsaffairs are managed, the nature and extent of the giftsreceived by it, rights exercised by devotees in regard toworship therein, the consciousness of the manager, and theconsciousness of the devotees themselves as to the publiccharacter of the temple, are factors that go to establishwhether a temple is a public or a private one and in eachcase both the documentary and oral evidence have to beconsidered as is whole while keeping in view the aboveprinciples. 8(d) An inference whether a religious institution is apubic one or a private one can be drawn from the usage andcustoms of the institution or from the mode in which theproperties have been dealt with as also the otherestablished circumstances.8(e) The essential sine qua non to make a temple apublic temple appears to be that the public should claimthe right to worship the deity installed therein as ofright. If the origin of the temple is very well-known asa private temple, then the clearest possible evidence isnecessary for converting that temple into a public temple.As worshippers, are naturally welcome and as the sentimentof a Hindu would not prevent another from making offeringsor to turn away a worshipper and as there is an inmatedesire in persons in charge of private temples not todiscourage popularity of the deity, the mere circumstance https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ o that the people in the locality were visiting thetemple and were worshipping the deity may not take awaythe character of the temple from a private temple to apublic temple. In all such cases worship of outsiders isreferable to the leave and licence granted by the ownerand cannot be indicative of any dedication to the public.8(f) A temple will not be a public temple within thescope of the Act because in the absence of an expressdedication for the benefit of the pubic, user by thepublic as of right must be established and such user as ofright is far different from the trustees being willing towelcome the public to come and worship in the temple. Ifa temple had no garbagraham, mahamandapam and if there wasno dwajasthambam, no prakaram no hundi and if no kanikaior any collection was made b y temple and if the utsavaidols were not taken in procession in the street then thetemple in not a public one.8(g) If the public do not worship the idol as ofright and simply because some poojas are performed in atemple and certain members of the public are allowed toparticipate in the pooja, the temple cannot be said to bea public temple."(iii) 2006(5) CTC 645 (Sri Krishnavilas Bajanai Madam v.The Commissioner, H.R. & C.E., Department, Madras and others),wherein, a Division Bench of this court held that in the absence ofany material whatsoever indicating that pubic had right toparticipate in the worship or in the bajanai or offer any worship, adocument creating a trust can be construed only as a private trust.The Division bench also held that in the absence of a member ofpublic participating in the management or even had right to worship,then same can be construed only as private trust.(iv) AIR 1972(SC) 1716 (T.D.Gopalan v. The Commissioner,H.R. & C.E. Department, Madras), wherein the Hon'ble Apex Courtheld as follows:" 11. ... In short the origin of the temple, themanner in which its affairs were managed, the nature andextent of the gifts received by it, rights exercised bydevotees in regard to worship therein, the consciousness ofthe manager and the consciousness of the devoteesthemselves as to the public character of the temple werefactors that went to establish whether a temple was publicor private." https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (v) AIR 1971 SC 2057 (The Bihar State Board of ReligiousTrust (Patna) v. Mahanth Sri. Bishwar Das), wherein it has been heldas follows:"14. Evidence that the mahants used to celebrate Hindufestivals when members of the public used to attend thetemple and give offerings and that the public wereadmitted to the temple for darshan and worship is alsoindicative of the temple being one for the benefit of thepublic. The celebration of festivals is according to Hindubelief, part and parcel of the pooja of the deity. ..."(vi) AIR 1954 MAD 482 (Madras Hindu Religious EndowmentsBoard v. N.Deivanai Ammal), wherein, the Division Bench of this courtheld as follows:" In the absence of a deed of dedication it isessential that it should be clearly proved that the templeclaimed as a public temple was dedicated to the public. Inthe case of an old temple, such dedication might bepresumed from long user by the public as of right. But inthe case of a recently built temple it would be difficult tohold that there has been dedication to the public, in theabsence of a deed of dedication. Where no property ahs beendedicated for the upkeep of the temple and the worship ismaintained and the expenses are met from out of privatefunds it is difficult to hold that the temple has beendedicated to the public. In such a case, merely the factof the Utsava deity being taken in procession or the factthat members of the public were worshipping in the temple,or that when the temple was built kubhabhishekam wasperformed on a grand scale, or a Gurukkal has been engagedto perform the pooja regularly and the temple has got agopuram and other features which are usually found in apublic temple is not of sufficient weight to prove thatthere has been dedication to the public."(vii) 2003(1) MLJ 288 ( The Commissioner, H.R. & C.E.Department, Madras and others v. K.Nagarajaodayar), wherein, theDivision Bench of this court held as follows:"11. The rules framed under clause 3 and 5 of Sec. 162of the Act provides for the manner in which enquiries shouldbe held. Detailed procedure is laid down regarding serviceof summons, recording of oral evidence and production fodocuments. Rule 20 provides for the applicability of theCode of Civil Procedure as far as practicable. TheCommissioner on the other hand had decided the title to theproperties summarily." https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (viii) 1983(2) MLJ 274 The Commissioner, H.R. & C.E.Department, Madras and another v. Swamikeela Arasalwar Dharmam)wherein, it was held as follows:" ... The mere fact that public is being allowed toparticipate in the festivals connected with the temple orallowed to worship in the temple could not persuade thecourt to readily infer therefrom dedication to the public.The crucial test is that the Hindu public or any sectionthereof must be entitled to use the place as a place ofpublic religious worship, and they must be doing it as ofright and not as gratia from the persons in the management.Hence, the plaintiff trust, its properties and the temple itbuilt cannot come within he mischief of the Act."(ix) 2003(1) CTC 65 ( The Commissioner, H.R. & C.E.Department, Madras and another v. T.S.Palanichammy and others),wherein, the Division Bench of this court held that the mere factthat the members of the public are allowed to worship by itselfwould not make an endowment a public unless it is proved that themembers of the public had a right to worship in the temple."22. On a perusal of the order passed by the secondrespondent/second defendant in O.A.No.31/88, it could be seen thatthe second respondent failed to take into consideration, thedocuments marked on the side of the appellant/plaintiff. Thatapart, he has not taken into consideration the oral evidences ofC.W.1 and P.Ws. However, the second respondent came to theconclusion that the suit temple is not a private temple. Onappeal by the appellant, the first respondent relied upon Ex.A-10,printed invitation, for the purpose of consecration ceremony and alsofound that there was a Hundial in the suit temple and ultimately thefirst respondent confirmed the order of the second respondent.23. Aggrieved over the orders passed by the respondents,the appellant has filed the statutory suit in O.S.No.8268 of 1992 onthe file of V Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai. The trialcourt also relied upon Ex.A-10, printed pamphlet wherein, as alreadystated, only the devotees were called upon to make donations and notthe public as found by the trial court.24. The consistent case of the appellant is that only theresidents of the teachers' colony are allowed to worship the deityand the public are not allowed to worship the temple as a matter ofright. According to the appellant, only the association of theteachers' colony is managing the temple. The very reading of Ex.A-10would show that only the devotees were requested to makecontributions for the temple ceremony. The trial court completelymisconstrued the word 'gf;jh;fs;' for public and erroneously cam to theconclusion that public also contributed for the ceremony. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

25. From the principles laid down in the above referredjudgments, it could be seen that the test to determine on facts ofeach case, whether a temple is a private or a public temple are (i)whether the user of the temple by members of the public is of right;(ii) whether the control and management vests either in a large bodyof persons or within the members of the public and the founder doesnot retain any control over the management; (iii) whether thededication of the properties is made by the founder who retain thecontrol and management and whether the control and management of thetemple is also retained by him; and (iv) where the evidence showsthat the founder of the endowment did not make any stipulation forofferings or contributions to be made by the members of the publicto the temple, this would be an important intrinsic circumstance toindicate the private nature of the endowment.26. It is not in dispute that the suit temple situate in aprivate land. It is also not the case of the respondents that theland belongs to them. The specific case of the appellant is that aportion of the lay out was set apart for the common communitypurpose at the time of plotting out the lands. Therefore, it is clearthat the temple was constructed only in the land belonging to theresidents of the teachers' colony.27. With regard to placing of hundial in the temple, theappellant contended that no hundial was placed in the temple and onlya small box was placed to collect the contribution from the residentsof the colony. However, the respondents contended that public alsocontributed in the said hundial. P.W.1 in his evidence specificallystated that the said box was not placed for collecting the donationsfrom the public and it was placed only for collating thecontributions from the residents of the colony. However, no publicwas examined on the side of the respondents to prove that public alsomade their contributions in the hundial.28. D.W.1, who was working as Inspector in H.R. & C.E.,Department, in her evidence deposed that according to her assessment,the suit temple is a public temple. However, in the crossexamination she admitted that she did not examine and worshippers inthe temple at the time of her inspection. Therefore, even withoutexamining or enquiring the worshippers in the temple, D.W.1 came tothe conclusion that the suit temple is a public temple. Further, thedispute with regard to the temple arose in the year 1988. D.W.1 wasappointed as Inspector in H.R. & C.E., Department only in the year1995. Therefore, it is clear that she was not working as anInspector in the Inspector in H.R. & C.E., Department during therelevant period. 29. It is not in dispute that generally the burden of proofis on the plaintiff to prove the case. But, in the case of dispute https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ with regard to the status of the temple, whether it is a publictemple or a private temple, the burden is on the Hindu Religiousand Charitable Endowment Department to prove that the temple is apublic temple.30. As laid down in the above referred judgments it isclear that the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Departmentought to have examined the public in order to prove that the templeis the public temple. 31. In the case on hand, they miserably failed to examineany public. In fact, they have examined only the Inspector ofHindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department as D.W.1. Whenthe appellant consistently pleaded that the public are not allowed toworship the deity as a matter of right, the respondents ought to haveexamined atleast one member of the public to prove that the publicare allowed to worship the deity as a matter of right. In thepresent case, they have not examined any public to substantiate theircontention.32. In the present case, there was no grant made in favourof the public by the owner of the property although the temple wasconstructed by private individuals. The temple is not constructed onthe Government land. The right to worship the deity is confined tothe residents of the teachers' colony. There is nothing on recordto show that the public have right to worship the deity. Further,there is no dedication of the temple to the public. Further, thetemple is of very recent origin and in the case of a recently builttemple, it would be difficult to hold that there has been dedicationto the public, in the absence of a deed of dedication. That apart,no property has been dedicated for the upkeep of the temple and thetemple is maintained and the expenses are met from out of privatefunds therefore, it is difficult to hold that the temple has beendedicated to the public. 33. Rules framed under clause 3 and 5 of Section 162 ofthe Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Act provides for themanner in which enquiries should be held. Detailed procedure is laiddown regarding service of summons, recording of oral evidence andproduction of documents. Rule 20 provides for the applicability ofthe Code of Civil Procedure. In the case on hand, the respondentswithout following the due procedure passed the orders holding thatthe suti temple is a public temple. 34. In AIR 1971 SC 2057 (referred supra), the Hon'ble Apexcourt held that the the dedication to public cannot be readilyinferred from the mere fact that members of public are freelyadmitted to the temple for worship or for attending festivalscelebrated in the temple. Further, there is nothing on record toshow that the appellant received donations from the public for the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ purpose of celebrating the festivals and also to manage the temple.The appellant specifically pleaded that the residents of the colonyused to contribute Rs.10/- each day for the management of thetemple. 35. As per section 6(20) of the Hindu Religious andCharitable Endowment Act 1959, a temple means a place by whateverdesignation known, used as a place of public religious worship anddedicated to, or for the benefit of, or used as of right by, theHindu community or of any section thereof, as a place of publicreligious worship.36. From the above discussion, it is clear that the suittemple does not fit into section 6(20) of the Hindu Religious andCharitable Endowment Act to be termed as public temple. 37. With regard to the distribution of prasadams likesacred water and thulasi, it is common that even in houses, afterperforming poojas, Hindus used to distribute prasadams. So, merelyby distributing sacred water and thulasi, the temple will not becomea public temple. In the absence of dedication to the public and bynon-examination of any public by the Hindu Religious and CharitableEndowment Department, the respondents miserably failed to establishthat the suit temple is a public temple. It is also an admittedfact that the temple committee consist of only the residents of theteachers' colony and no public were allowed to participate in thecommittee at any point of time. It also provs that the suit templeis a private temple and not a public temple.38. As already stated, no independent witness or member ofthe public has come to state that he was visiting the temple as ofright and performing pooja pursuant thereto. The mere presumptionof worshippers on certain occasions by itself is not conclusive toshow that the generality of the public were having ingress intothe temple as of right. Further, if a person alleges that aparticular religious institution is a public temple, it is for him toestablish it. The appellant alleged that it is a private templeand that they have also established by reasonable oral anddocumentary evidence that it is such an institution. On thecontrary, the respondents, who alleged that the suit temple is apublic temple, failed to discharge the onus of proof.39. It is also not in dispute that the temple is under thelock and key of the appellant/plaintiff i.e, previously with BashyamIyengar and after his death, with his son Kuppusamy, the appellantherein. The temple is opened according to the convenience of theresidents of the teachers' colony. There is no fixed hours foropening and closing the temple. Further, there is no Dwajasthambam,Rajagopuram and Prakaram in the temple. The temple has beenmaintained by the contribution made by the residents of the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ teachers' colony. All these ingredients clearly prove that thetemple is meant only for the residents of the teachers' colony andnot to the public as a matter of right.40. In these circumstances, I hold that the suit temple isa private temple. Therefore, the judgment and decree of the trialcourt are liable to be set aside and the appellant is entitled to adecree for declaration and permanent injunction as prayed for.41. Accordingly, the judgment and decree in O.S.NO. 8268of 1992 on the file of V Assistant Judge, City Civil Court,Chennai are set aside. The suit in O.S.NO. 8268 of 1992 on thefile of V Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai is decreed asprayed for. The above appeal is allowed. Consequently, connectedmiscellaneous petition is closed. However, there shall be no orderas to costs. Sd/-Asst. Registrar//true copy//Sub Asst.Registrar rjTo1. The V Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai. 2. The Record Keeper, V.R.Section, High Court, Madras.1 cc to Government Pleader, Sr.No.915271 cc to Mr.T.V.Krishnamachari, Advocate, Sr.No.91600 Judgment inA.S. No.197 of 2003NG {CO}TP/21.1.2011.