Case: Sri Bhavanarayanaswamivari Temple Vs. Vadapalli Venkata Bhavanarayanacharyulu

the committee, the trustee and all persons having interest."5. 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 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.6. 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 to see that the temples 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 of 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 Others v. Manohar Ganesh Tambekar and Others (ILR XXIV Bom 50) :"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 Others (AIR 1937 Mad 106 ); 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.7. 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 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 ((AIR) (33) 1946 Mad 509); a Division Bench of the Madras High Court held that the order made by the District Court under Section 84 (2) of the Act operates as res judicata in a subsequent proceeding. Under Section 84 (1) the Board is given power to decide if any dispute arises as to : (a) whether an institution is a Math or temple as defined to the Act; (b) whether the trustee is a hereditary trustee as 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. Sub-section (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-section (3) thereof provides for 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.8. In Balakotayyas case (supra) while examining the effect of a decision under Section 84 (2), it was observed that 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 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.9. 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 Boards 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 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 ((1962) 2 MLJ 13 ) this Court held that a decision of the Board under Section 84 (1) which had become final in the absence of any application to the Court to set aside that decision under Section 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.10. 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.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]9. 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 Boards 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 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 ((1962) 2 MLJ 13  ) this Court held that a decision of the Board under Section 84 (1) which had become final in the absence of any application to the Court to set aside that decision under Section 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.10. 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.