http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 5  

PETITIONER: SRI BHAVANARAYANASWAMIVARI TEMPLE

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: VADAPALLI VENKATA BHAVANARAYANACHARYULU

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 25/03/1970

BENCH: [J. C. SHAH AND K. S. HEGDE, JJ.]

ACT: Madras  Religious and Charitable Endowments Act,  1927  s.57 (1) and (3)--Decision of Madras Religious Endowment Board in proceeding  under s. 57(1) that certain properties  did  not belong to temple--No suit filed under s. 57(3)--Decision  of Board whether operates as res judicata--Proceeding under  s. 57(1) whether a summary proceeding.

HEADNOTE: In 1931 the Madras Endowments Board framed a scheme for  the better management of the appellant temple.  At that time the question   arose  whether  the  suit  properties  were   the properties  of  the  temple.  The  respondent’s  family  put forward the claim that those properties had been granted  to them  as  archakatwam service inam  and  consequently  those properties were not temple properties.  That contention  was accepted  by  the  Board.   The  Board’s  decision  was  not challenged by the appellant by a suit- under s. 57(3) of the Act.   The  suit under appeal was filed  by  the  respondent praying for a declaration that the suit properties had  been granted to his family as archakatwam service inam, and  that the   appellant  had  no  right  therein.    An   injunction restraining   the  appellant  from  interferring  with   the respondent’s possession was also prayed for.  The  appellant resisted  the claim.  The lower courts as well as  the  High Court  upheld the respondent’s claim on the ground that  the appellant’s claim was barred by res judicata.  In this Court it  was  urged on behalf of the appellant that  the  Board’s decision  could not be regarded as res judicata because  (i) the  proceeding before the Board was a  summary  proceeding, (ii) the question as to the title of the suit properties was not  directly and substantially in issue in that  proceeding since  the essential purpose of the framing of a scheme  for the management of a temple is to see that the administration is carried on properly and not to determine what  properties the temple owns. HELD: (i) It is not correct to say that the power  conferred on  the  Board under s. 57 is a summary power.   A  decision rendered by the Board under that section is final subject to the  result  of the suit contemplated in the  said  section. Section 57 provides for an exhaustive enquiry in the  matter of  framing  scheme, firstly by the Board and  then  by  the Court.   The  trial before the Court has to be held  in  the same  manner as any other suit that may be instituted  under the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code. [131 E-F] (ii)  (a) The doctrine of res judicata is not confined to  a

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 5  

decision  in  a suit but it applies to  decisions  in  other proceedings  as  well.   But how far  a  decision  which  is rendered in other proceedings will bind the parties  depends upon  other  considerations  one of  which  is  whether  the decision  determines substantial rights of parties  and  the other   is   whether  the  ’parties   are   given   adequate opportunities to establish the rights pleaded by them.   The doctrine  of  res  judicata is not confined  to  the  limits prescribed  in s. 11 Civil Procedure Code.   The  underlying principle of that doctrine is that there should be  finality in  litigation and that a person should not be  vexed  twice over in respect of the same matter. [132 B-C] 129 (b)  A scheme framed for the better management of  a  temple must necessarily show therein the properties of the  temple. Before deciding to frame a scheme the authority framing  the scheme  must know the nature and extent of the trust  funds. There can be no scheme of management of a temple in  vacuum. [131 A-B] In  the previous proceedings one of the important  questions the  Board  had  to decide was  whether  the  properties  in dispute  were  archakatwam  service  inam  properties.   The Board’s  decision which was adverse to the  temple  affected the  rights  of the temple in a substantial manner.  It  was open to the    temple to get its right established by  means of a suit under s. 57(3).     It  failed to take that  step. Therefore, the decision of the Board in 1931 that  the  suit properties  were  not  temple  properties  operated  as  res judicata, and the appeal must fail. [132 D-G] Chotalal Lakhmiram & Ors. v. Manohar Ganesh Tambekar &  Ors. I.L.R. XXIV Bom. p. 50, (Sri Mahant) Sitaram Dass Bavaji  v. Madras  Religious Endowment Board, Madras, A.I.R. 1937  Mad. 106,  Arikapudi  Balakotayya v. Yadlapalli  Nagayya,  A.I.R. (33)  1946  Mad.  509  and  State  of  Madras  v.  Kunnakudi Melamatam  alias  Annathana  Matam,  (1962)  2  M.L.J.   13, applied.

JUDGMENT: CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 431 of 1967. Appeal  by special leave from the judgment and decree  dated September 1, 1966 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Second Appeal No. 719 of 1962. R. Venugopal Reddy and K. Jayaram, for the appellants. B. Parthasarathy, for the respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Hegde, J.-The point in controversy in this appeal by special leave is whether the properties in dispute herein constitute a  hereditary  archakatwam  service  inam  granted  to   the plaintiff’s predecessors or whether they are the  properties of  the  appellant temple.  The High Court  and  the  courts below  have  come  to the conclusion  that  the  appellant’s contention  that it is the owner of the suit  properties  is barred  by res judicata.  That conclusion is  challenged  in this appeal. In the suit under appeal the respondent who is an archaka in the appellant temple prayed for a declaration that the  suit properties  had  been granted to his family  as  archakatwam service  Inam  land  and that the  appellant  has  no  right therein.   He has also asked for an  injunction  restraining the  appellant  from  interfering with  his  possession  and enjoyment.   The  appellant denied the  respondent’s  claim. The  High Court as well as the appellate court  have  upheld the  respondent’s claim on the ground that  the  appellant’s

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 5  

claim is barred by res judicata. 130 In  1931  the  Madras Religious Endowments  Board  framed  a scheme  for the better management of the  appellant  temple. At that time the question arose whether the suit  properties were the properties of the temple.  The respondent’s  family put forward the claim that those properties had been granted to  them as archakatwam service inam and consequently  those properties were not temple properties.  That contention  was accepted  by the Board.  It is said that the  said  decision operates  as  res  judicata against the claim  made  by  the appellant. On behalf of the appellant it was urged that the proceeding before  the Board under s. 57(1) of the Madras  Religious  & Charitable  Endowments  Act, 1927 (in short the Act)  was  a summary proceeding, the question as to the title to the suit properties  was not directly and substantially in  issue  in that  proceeding and as such the decision in  question  does not operate as res judicata in the present suit. Section 57(1) as it stood in 1931 reads thus               "When  the  Board  is satisfied  that  in  the               interest  of the proper administration of  the               endowments   of   a  temple,   a   scheme   of               administration  should be settled,  the  Board               may after consulting in the prescribed manner,               the  trustee,  the committee, if any  and  the               persons  having  interest by  order  settle  a               scheme of administration for the endowments of               such temple". Sub-section (3) of that section says               "Every  order of the Board under  this  scheme               shall be published in the prescribed  mariner.               The trustee or any person having interest  may               within   six  months  of  the  date  of   such               publication  institute a suit in the court  to               modify or set aside such order. Subject to the               result  of such suit every order of the  Board               shall  be final and binding on the  committee,               the trustee and all persons    having               interest." It  is not disputed that the decision of the  Board  holding that the  properties  in question were  archakatwam  service inam lands was not  challenged by means of a suit  under  S. 57(3). Therefore the     said decision has become final.  We have now to see what is the   effect  of  the  finality   in question.  According  to the appellant as the title  to  the suit properties was not directly and substantially in  issue in the proceeding before the Board and the decision  thereon being  only  incidental,  the same  cannot  operate  as  res judicata. In  support of the contention that the decision rendered  by the Board was only an incidental one, it was urged that  the essential purpose of framing of a scheme for the  management of temple is 131 to  see  that  the temple’s  administration  is  carried  on properly;  and" in such a proceeding it is not necessary  to determine  what  all  properties the temple  owns.   We  are unable  to accede to this contention.  A scheme  framed  for the  better  management of a temple  must  necessarily  show therein  the properties of the temple.  Before  deciding  to frame  a scheme the authority framing the scheme  must  know the  nature and extent of the trust funds.  There can be  no scheme of management of a temple in vacuum.  As observed  by the  Judicial  Committee in Chotalal Lakhmiram and  ors.  v.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 5  

Manohar Ganesh Tambekar and ors.(1) :               "Until  the  trust funds are  ascertained,  it               seems  impossible  that  any  scheme  can   be               settled." Varadachariar  J.  in (Sri Mahant) Sitaram  Dass  Bavaji  v. Madras   Religious  Endowment  Board,  Madras  and   OrS;(2) observed.  that  the power given by s. 63 to the  Board  for framing  a  scheme  for the management of  a  mutt,-a  power similar  to  that  conferred on the Board under  S.  57  for framing  scheme for the management of a temple-carries  with it   the  power  to  settle  what  the  properties  of   the institution  are.  A scheme for proper administration  of  a temple    must   necessarily   provide   for   the    proper administration  of  its assets.  The  persons  empowered  to manage  must know what properties are to be governed by  the scheme and what the resources of the temple are. It  is  not correct to say that the power conferred  on  the Board.  under  s.  57 is a summary power  as  urged  by  the learned  Counsel for the appellant.  A decision rendered  by the Board under that section is final subject to the  result of  the suit contemplated in the said section.   Section  57 provides for an exhaustive enquiry in the matter of  framing scheme,  firstly  by the Board and then by the  Court.   The trial before the court has to be held in the same manner  as any  other suit that may be instituted under the  provisions of  the Civil Procedure Code.  In Arikapudi  Balakotayya  v. Yadlapalli Nagayya(3); a Division Bench of the Madras  High, Court  held that the order made by the District Court  under s. 84(2) of the Act operates as res judicata in a subsequent proceeding.   Under  s. 84(1) the Board is  given  Dower  to decide   if  any  dispute  arises  as  to  (a)  whether   an institution  is a math or temple as defined in the Act;  (b) whether  the trustee is a hereditary trustee a_  defined  in the Act or not and (c) whether any property or money endowed is a specific endowment as defined in the Act or not.  Subs. (2)  of that section provides that any person affected by  a decision  under sub-s. (1) may, within six months  apply  to the  Court to modify or set aside that decision.  Sub-s  (3) thereof provides for (1) I.L.R. XXIV Bom. p. 50.      (2) A.I.R. 1937 Mad. 106. (3) A.I.R. (33) 1946 Mad. 509. 132 an  appeal  to  the  High Court against  the  order  of  the District  Judge.  Sub-s. (4) of that section  provides  that subject to the result of an application under sub-s. (2)  or an appeal under sub-s. (3), the decision of the Board  shall be final. In  Balakotayya’s case(’1) while examining the effect  of  a decision  under s. 84(2), it was observed that the  doctrine of res judicata is (not confined to a decision in a suit  it applies to decisions in other proceedings as well.  But  how far  a decision which is rendered in other proceedings  will bind  the parties depends upon other considerations  one  of which is whether that decision determines substantial rights of  parties and the other is whether the parties  are  given adequate  opportunities to establish the rights  pleaded  by them.   The doctrine of res judicata is not confined to  the limits  prescribed  in  S. 11, Civil  Procedure  Code.   The underlying  principle of that doctrine is that there  should be  finality in litigation and that a person should  not  be vexed twice over in respect of the same matter. In  the  proceedings  with which we are  concerned  in  this appeal one of the important question the Board had to decide was  whether  the  properties  in  dispute  are  archakatwam service  inam  properties.  The Board’s decision  which  was

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 5  

adverse to the temple, affected the rights of the temple  in a substantial manner.  It was open to the temple to get  its right  established  by means of a suit under S.  57(3).   It failed  to  take-that step.  Therefore the decision  of  the Board  has become final and binding on the temple. In  State of  Madras v. Kunnakudi Melamatam alias  Annathana  Matam(2) this Court held that a decision of the Board under s.  84(1) which had become final in the absence of any application  to the court to set aside that decision under s. 84(2), holding that  the  institution was outside the purview of  the  Act, bars  the  board  from  levying  any  contribution  on   the institution under the Act subsequently. In  our judgment the decision of the Board in 1931 that  the suit  properties are not temple properties operates  as  res judicata in the present proceeding. In  the result this appeal fails and the same  is  dismissed with costs. G.C.                             Appeal dismissed. (1)  A.I.R. (33) 1946 Mad. 509. (2)  (1962) 2 M.L. J. p. 13. 133