SRI BHAVANARAYANASWAMIVARI TEMPLE versus VADAPALLI VENKATA BHAVANARAYANACHARYULU

Citation: [1971] 1 S.C.R. 128 · Decided: 25-03-1970 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.C. SHAH · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

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 judicata-
Proceeding 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 respon-
dent'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 deci-
sion 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 pro-
ceeding 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 contem-
plated 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 archa-
katwam 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 
Bala

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.