Full Judgment Text
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