Judgment :-

Markandey Katju, J.

1.1. This appeal by special leave against the impugned judgment and order dated 6.1.2003 of the High Court Madras passed in L.P.A. No. 17 of 1998.

2.2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

3. The appellants are the Trustees of Shri Gangai Vinayagar Temple, Thirumudi Nagar, Pondicherry. They had executed a lease deed on 8.11.1967 in favour of one Kanniah Chettiar in respect of a plot of land on which the lessee was to erect a theatre. The

lease was for a period of 15 years commencing 1.1.1968.

3.4. The original lessee died after constructing the theatre and his widow filed a suit being

O.S 125 of 1976, which came to be later renumbered as Suit No. 5 of 1978, impleading therein the temple as the first respondent and the members of the Trust Committee as respondent Nos. 2 to 6. Three persons who were alleged to be those to whom the site on which the theatre stood was sought to be sold by the Trustees, were also impleaded as defendant Nos. 7 to 9. The prayer made in Suit No.5 of 1978 was for an injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiffs possession till the expiry of the period of lease.

1.5. During pendency of the said suit (Suit No. 5 of 1978), the Trustees filed two suits being numbered as O.S. Nos. 6 of 1978 and 7 of 1978, claiming arrears of rent from the lessee. All these three suits were tried together and a common judgment was delivered. The trial court held that the lessee was entitled to retain possession of the property for the duration of the lease. This finding was given in view of the statement made by the defendants in their written statement that they had no intention to interfere with the plaintiffs possession till the expiry of the lease. Accordingly, Suit No. 5 of 1978 was dismissed.

.6. The Trustees in their additional written statement filed in O.S No. 5 of 1978 had pleaded that the property was the personal property of the temple and the Trustees. Taking note of this plea the trial court framed an issue being issue No. 2 in O.S. No. 5 of 1978 as follows:

.Whether the suit property is not the personal property of Sethuraman Chettiar and whether the plaintiffs are not estopped from questioning the title of the landlord or his vendors ?"

2.7. The lessee or the plaintiff did not question the title of the Trust at any point of time.

.8. In O.S. Nos. 6 of 1978 and 7 of 1978, the trial court framed issue No. 3 which was decided along with issue No. 2 in O.S. No. 5 of 1978. In deciding issue No. 2, the trial court went into the question whether the temple was a public temple or a private temple,

.and whether permission from the statutory authorities was required for effecting the sale of the property to defendant Nos. 7 to 9. Suit O.S. No. 6 of 1978 was decreed in part while O.S. No. 7 of 1978 was dismissed.

3.9. The lessee filed an appeal against the decree in O.S. No. 6 of 1978. No appeal was filed against the judgment in O.S. No. 5 of 1978. The lessor also did not file any appeal against the dismissal of his suit, O.S. No. 7 of 1978.

4.10. The learned Single Judge of the High Court who heard the appeal against the judgment in O.S. No. 6 of 1978 rejected the objection raised by the learned counsel for the temple and its Trustees that the appeal was barred by the principle of res judicata. That objection was on the ground that the finding recorded on issue No.2 in O.S. No. 5 of 1978 had become final as no appeal had been filed against the judgment in O.S. No. 5 of 1978.

5.11. The learned Single Judge also held that the temple is a public temple and that the property belonging to the temple cannot be alienated without obtaining the requisite permission from the statutory authorities. The learned Single Judge, thus, reversed the judgment of the trial court on issue No. 3 in O.S. No. 6 of 1978.

6.12. The appellant then filed an appeal before the learned Division Bench of the High Court against the judgment and order of the learned Si