Judgment

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 Court 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.

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 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.

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 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.

4. On behalf of the appellant it was urged that the proceeding before the Board under Section 57(1) of the Madras Religious and 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 manner. 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."

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 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