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 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 section 571 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 571 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 section 573
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
vs Manohar Ganesh Tambekar and ors1  Until the trust funds are ascertained it seems impossible that any scheme can be settled Varadachariar J in Sri Mahant Sitaram Dass Bavaji vs Madras Religious Endowment Board Madras and OrS2 observed
that the power given by section 63 to the Board for framing a scheme for the management of a mutt a power similar to that conferred on the Board under section 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 section 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 vs Yadlapalli Nagayya3 a Division Bench of the Madras High Court held that the order made by the District Court under section 842 of the Act operates as res judicata in a subsequent proceeding
Under section 841 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
2 of that section provides that any person affected by a decision under sub section
1 may within six months apply to the Court to modify or set aside that decision
Sub s 3 thereof provides for 1 ILR XXIV Bom
p 50
2 AIR 1937 Mad 106
3 AIR 33 132 an appeal to the High Court against the order of the District Judge
Sub section
4 of that section provides that subject to the result of an application under sub section
2 or an appeal under sub section
3 the decision of the Board shall be final
In Balakotayya s case 1 while examining the effect of a decision under section 842 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 section 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 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 section 573
It failed to take that step
Therefore the decision of the Board has become final and binding on the temple
In State of Madras vs Kunnakudi Melamatam alias Annathana Matam2 this Court held that a decision of the Board under section 841 which had become final in the absence of any application to the court to set aside that decision under section 842 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
GC Appeal dismissed
1 AIR 33 2 1962 2 ML J p 13


Summary:
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 section 573 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 section 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 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 section 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 section 573
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
vs Manohar Ganesh Tambekar  Ors
ILR XXIV Bom
p 50 Sri Mahant Sitaram Dass Bavaji vs Madras Religious Endowment Board Madras AIR 1937 Mad 106 Arikapudi Balakotayya vs Yadlapalli Nagayya AIR 33 and State of Madras vs Kunnakudi Melamatam alias Annathana Matam  applied