Raghava Rao, J. - (1.) THERE are three temples situated in Adoni with reference to which a declaration was sought by the respondent before me that they were not temples as defined by Section 9 Sub -clause 12 of the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act but private institutions for private worship for the benefit of herself and to all the members of the families to which she (P. W. 1) belongs - - the Hyati family as it is described in the records and the court family with which the Hyati family was connected by marital ties. The respondent before me succeeded in her application to the District Court under Section 84 of the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act although she had failed before the Hindu Religious Endowments. Board in the enquiry which preceded the petition in the District Court.
(2.) THE entire material relevant to the decision of the matter before me lies in a short and narrow compass. The oral evidence given, before the District Court consisted of the petitioner before it as P. W. 1 and seven witnesses on the opposite side. The report of the Assist -ant Commissioner of the locality for the Endowments in question was also put before the Court as a document which came into existence as a result of the enquiry by the Inspector in which several persons of the locality were examined by him. The documentary evidences further consisted of Ex. E. 2 series, certain receipts for payment of municipal taxes. On these materials which have been very carefully canvassed by learned counsel on both sides before me at very great length I have come to the distinct conclusion that the only possible view to take of this matter is that the places of worship in question are temples as defined by the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act.
(3.) MR . Kondayya the learned advocate for the respondent has emphasised the following considerations as supporting the view taken by the District Court: (1) that the temples were constructed long long ago about a century back not out of the funds from the public but presumably from out of the funds contributed by the ancestors of his client, (2) that for marriages performed within the precincts of the temples or for bhajanas conducted therein the permission of the members of his client's family used to be taken, (3) that the expenses for the worship in the temples inclusive of all the food preparations and other preparations were found only by the members of the families of her ancestors, and (4) that the poojari of the temples would after worship was over handover, the keys of the temples to one or other persons in the management of the temples who were persons belonging either to the Hyati family or the court family. Learned counsel has also urged that but for some spite and ill will that arose between R. W. 7 and P. W. 1 there would not have been the slightest attempt on the part of the Endowments Department to claim these places of worship as temples under the Act. It is not disputed before me by the learned counsel for the respondent that the lands at Rampur and the houses round about the shrines stand registered in the names of the deities concerned. Nor could it be disputed by him as the evidence on record on both sides is all one way to that effect, that for ordinary purposes of worship in the shrine any Hindu member of the locality irrespective of his caste or creed could very well visit. All the seven witnesses on the side of the respondent before the Court below have definitely sworn that there is absolute freedom of worship for such people in the shrines. It is significant to notice that there is no statement in the deposition of P. W. 1 herself that there were any restrictions on such worship. Relying on these facts which have been practically found by the Court below in its judgment, Mr. Seshachalapathi for the appellant has argued that the character of the shrines must be regarded as that of temples according to the definition of the Act.;