Summary
A family contested a finding that its temple was public, disputing the alleged endowment and notice procedure behind a historical register entry. Finding the oral evidence balanced and the register potentially decisive if lawfully prepared, the Court ordered fresh adjudication with evidence and preserved status quo rather than finally declaring the temple private or public.
Issues
- Whether the historical endowment entry conclusively established public status despite disputed compliance with registration and notice procedures.
Provisions considered
- Regulations 3–8, Endowment Regulations considered by the CourtThe described process of intimation, notification, objections, inquiry and registration highlighted the need to establish lawful preparation of the historical entry; the Court noted that the produced1940 regulations postdated it. (¶ 20–22)
Held
- The historical register entry and Gazette publication were significant, but the presumption that official acts were regularly performed was rebuttable. The witness producing the entry lacked knowledge of its preparation and did not prove it against original records. (¶ 18–22)
- With oral evidence evenly balanced and a persistent challenge to the endowment and notice, both sides should have an opportunity to produce evidence on whether a lawful public endowment occurred. No final merits conclusion was warranted at this stage. (¶ 21–24)
Result
Appeal allowed and impugned judgment set aside without costs. Appellants to represent to the competent authority within four weeks; reasoned adjudication after notice and evidence within six months of filing, with property status quo meanwhile. Merits left open.