Case: Sri Bhavanarayanaswamivari Temple Vs. Vadapalli Venkata Bhavanarayanacharyulu

The High Court and the Courts below have come to the conclusion that the appellants contention that it is the owner of the suit properties is barred by res judicata. That conclusion is challenged in this appeal.2. 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 respondents claim. The High Court as well as the Appellate Court have upheld the respondents claim on the ground that the appellants claim is barred by res judicata.3. 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 respondents 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.

Reasoning:
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.