# SRI BHAVANARAYANASWAMIVARI TEMPLE v. VADAPALLIVENKATA BHAVANARAYANACHARYULU

- **Citation:** [1971] 1 S.C.R. 128
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1970-03-25
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 431 of 1967
- **Bench:** J. C. Shah, K. S. Hegde
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/sri-bhavanarayanaswamivari-temple-v-vadapallivenkata-bhavanarayanacharyulu-5018
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

Madras Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1927 s. 57(1) and
(3)-Decision of l!!adras Religious Endown1ent
Board
in
proceeding
under s. 57 (I) that certiain properties did not belong to te111ple-No suit
filed llnder s. 57(3)-Decision of Board whether operates as res judicataProceeding under s. 57(1) whether a sum1nary proceeding.
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 p'ropert_ies of the temple. The respondent's 'family put forward the claim that those properties had been granted
to them as archakat\vam service inam and consequently those properties
\Vere not temple properties. That contention \Vas 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 lo'A'er cou'rts as well as the High Court upheld the respondent's
claim on the ground that the appellant's claim was barred by res judicata.
Jn 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 pro_ceeding 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 df 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 ~emple 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
rerdered 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 enqtiiry
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 decision in a
suit but it applies to decisions in other proceedings as well.
But how 'fa'f
a decision which is rendeied in other proceedings wi1l 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 judfc,,ta 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 he
vexed twice wer in respect of the same matter. [132 B-CJ
A
B
c
D
E
/
F
G
r
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
SRI B. TEMPLE v. VADAPALLI (Hegde, J.)
129
(b) A scheme frM!'eJ for the better management of a temple !".°st
necessarily show therein the properltes of the temple.
Before dec1drng
to frame a scheme the authority framing the scheme must know the nature
and exteni of the trust funds.
There can be no scheme of management
of a temple in vacuum. [131 A-Bl
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 advei·se
to the temple affected the rights of the temple in a substantial 1..1anner.
It was open to the temple to get its right established by means o'f 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

## Text

128
SRI BHAVANARAYANASWAMIVARI TEMPLE
v.
VADAPALLIVENKATA BHAVANARAYANACHARYULU
March 25, 1970
[J. C. SHAH AND K. S. HEGDE, JJ.]
Madras Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1927 s. 57(1) and
(3)-Decision of l!!adras Religious Endown1ent
Board
in
proceeding
under s. 57 (I) that certiain properties did not belong to te111ple-No suit
filed llnder s. 57(3)-Decision of Board whether operates as res judicataProceeding under s. 57(1) whether a sum1nary proceeding.
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 p'ropert_ies of the temple. The respondent's 'family put forward the claim that those properties had been granted
to them as archakat\vam service inam and consequently those properties
\Vere not temple properties. That contention \Vas 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 lo'A'er cou'rts as well as the High Court upheld the respondent's
claim on the ground that the appellant's claim was barred by res judicata.
Jn 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 pro_ceeding 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 df 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 ~emple 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
rerdered 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 enqtiiry
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 decision in a
suit but it applies to decisions in other proceedings as well.
But how 'fa'f
a decision which is rendeied in other proceedings wi1l 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 judfc,,ta 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 he
vexed twice wer in respect of the same matter. [132 B-CJ
A
B
c
D
E
/
F
G
r
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
SRI B. TEMPLE v. VADAPALLI (Hegde, J.)
129
(b) A scheme frM!'eJ for the better management of a temple !".°st
necessarily show therein the properltes of the temple.
Before dec1drng
to frame a scheme the authority framing the scheme must know the nature
and exteni of the trust funds.
There can be no scheme of management
of a temple in vacuum. [131 A-Bl
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 advei·se
to the temple affected the rights of the temple in a substantial 1..1anner.
It was open to the temple to get its right established by means o'f 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]
Chota/al Lakhmiram & Ors. v. Manohar Ganesh Tambekar &
Ors.
I.LR. XXIV Born. p. 50, (Sri Mahant) Sitaram Da"s Bavaji v. Madras
Religious Endowment Board, Madras, A.LR. 1937 Mad. 106, Arikapudi
Balakotayya v. Yadlapalli Nagayya, A.LR. (33) 1946 Mad.
509 anrl
State of Madras v. Kunnakudi
Melamatam alias Annathana
Matam.
(1962) 2 M.L.J. 13, applied.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION:
Civil Appeal No. 431 of
1967.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and decree date'
September l, 19§6 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Seconu
Appeal No. 719 of 1962.
R. Venugopal Reddy and K. Jayaram, for the appellants.
B. Parthasarathy, for the respond~tit.
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 rts 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 cieclaration 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 pos~ession 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
appelhmt's claim is barred.hy res judicata.
130
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1971] I $.C.R ..
In 1931 the Madras Religious Endowments. Board framed a
A
· . I
· 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 res,pondent's family put. forward
the claim that those P!Operties had been grante::I to them as
archakatwam service inam and
c01~sequently those properties
were not temple properties, That contention was accepted by the
B
Board.
It is said tha! 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&. Chari- ,
table 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 afttr consulting in the prescribed manlier,
the trustee, the com.mittee, if any and the persons having interest by order settle a scheme of administration
for the endowments of such temple".
Sub-seciion (3) of that. section says :
"Every order of the Board under this scheme shall
be published in the prescribed manner. .The trustee or
any person having interest may within six months of the
· $~_.Qf such publication institute a suit ill the court to
modify or set aside such. order. . Subject to the result of
such suir every order of the Board . shall be final and
binding on the. COlllmittee, the trustee and. all persons
hal'ing interest."
·
. · .
.
. ·
· It is not disputed !Jtat the decision of the Board holding that
the pt0perties ill ,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 cflect of the finality in question. According to the appellant
as the tide 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 s~~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
c
D
E
F
G
H
>
A
B
c
0
I
r r
G
H
SRI B. THULE v. VADAPALL! \t1egae, J.)
13I
to see that the temple's administmtion is carried on properly; and·
in such a p;oceeding it is not necessary to determine what all pro·
perties the temple owns. We are unable to accede to this conten·
tion.
A scheme framed for the better management of a temple
must necessarily show therein the properties of the temple.
Be·
fore decidi.ng 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 observ·
ed by the Judicial Committee in Chota/a/ Lakhmiram and ors. V·
Manohar .Ganesh Tambekar and ors. ") :
"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 schem<
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--<:arries 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 resour·
ces 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 subjei;t 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 provi·
sions of the Civil Procedure Code. In Arikapudi Balakotayya v.
Yad/apalli Nagayya( 8 ); a Division Bench of the Madras High
Court held that the order made by the District Court under s.
84 ( 2) of the Act O(>Cf!ltes 118 res judicata in a subsequent proceeding. Under s. 84(1) the Board is given power to docide 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
as defined in the Act or .not and ( c) whether llllY property or money
endowed is aspecific endowment • defined in the Act or not. Subs. (2) of that section provides that any person affected by a deci·
sion 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.LR. XXIV Born. p. SO.
(2) A.I.R.1937 Mad. 106.
(J) AJ.R. (33) 1946 Mad. 509.
132
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1971] 1 S.C.R.
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 Ba/akotayya's case('') while examining the effect of a decision under s. 84(2), it was observed that the doctrine of res judicata is tilOt 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 win 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 limi•s prescribed in s. 11, Civil Procedure CJde. The underlying principle of that doctrine is that there should be finality in
-litigatio11and 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 deciae was
whether the properties in dispute are archakatwam service inam
properties;
The Board's decision which was ;idverse 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.
ln State of Madras v. Kunnakudi Melamatam alias Annathana
Matam( 2 ) this Cocrt held that a decision of the Board under s.
84(1) which had b•!come 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.
(I) A.LR. (33) 1946 Mad. 5l9.
(2) (1162) 2 M.L. J. p. 13.
Appeal dismissed.
A
B
c
D
E
F
G