The main legal point established is that the decision in prior proceedings under S.84 (2) of the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act operates as res judicata in subsequent suits. The court also clarified the right to adduce evidence in the District Court and interpreted the definition of 'temple' under the Acts.

1. This is a Letters Patent Appeal against the judgment and decree passed by Panchapakesa Ayyer, J., of the Madras High Court in A. S. No. 66 of 1951 of that court. Plaintiffs 1 and 2 in O. S. No. 2 of 1949 of the court of the Additional Subordinate Judge of Ottapalam are the appellants. They are the karanavans and managers of their illoms, and they brought the said suit for a declaration that the Moonumoorthy temple in Trikkateeri amsom was not a temple coming under the definition of that term as defined in the Madras Temple Entry Authorisation Act (Madras Act 5 of 1947) and that the provisions of the Act were not applicable to that temple as it was founded by their ancestors for private worship by their families. Before filing the suit, they had made a reference to the Government under S.6 of the Madras Temple Entry Authorisation Act as to whether the temple would come within the purview of that Act; and that reference was decided by the Government on 11-12-1948 holding that the temple would come within the purview of the Act. The Appellants then brought O. S. No. 2 of 1949, filing it as a representative suit and impleading therein six persons as defendants to represent six different communities among the Hindus of the locality. Those defendants remained exparte, but six other persons got themselves impleaded as defendants 7 to 12 and they contested the suit, their main contention being that the suit was barred by res judicata by reason of the decision of the District Court of South Malabar in O.P. No. 32 of 1928 on its file that the temple in question was a public temple. O. P. No. 32 of 1928 was filed under S.84 (2) of the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act (2 of 1927) for setting aside the decision of the Hindu Religious Endowments Board under S.84 (1) of the same Act that the temple was one to which that Act would apply. The Subordinate Judge upheld the contention of defendants 7 to 12 and dismissed O. S. No 2 of 1949, and thereupon the plaintiffs filed A. S. No 66 of 1951. Panchapakesa Ayyer, J., heard that appeal and dismissed it, confirming the decision of the Subordinate Judge, and so, the plaintiffs have-filed this Letters Patent Appeal. The only question which arises for consideration in the appeal is whether the decision in O. P. No. 32 of 1928, namely, Ex. B2, would operate as res judicata or not so far as the present suit is concerned.

2. In the trial court as well before the learned judge of the Madras High Court the appellants took up the extreme position that under no circumstance would an order, passed by a District Court under S.84 (2) of the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act, operate as res judicata in any subsequent suit or proceeding. This extreme contention was not rightly pressed before us in view of the Bench decisions of the Madras High Court in Sri Ishwarananda Bharathi Swami v. Commissioner, H. R. E. Board (AIR 1932 Mad. 593) and Balakotayya v. Nagayya (AIR 1946 Mad. 509 which have been followed in later cases. In Balakotayya v. Nagayya it was expressly held that the proceedings under S.84 (2) is analogous to a suit, and the decision is one given in proceedings which are in the nature of a suit and would therefore operate as res judicata in a subsequent proceeding between the same parties. The attempt of the learned counsel for the appellants before us was to distinguish the present case from Balakotayya v. Nagayya on two grounds.

3. The main question which came for derision in Sri Ishwarananda Bharathi Swami v. Commissioner, H.R.E. Board (AIR 1932 Mad. 593) was whether, in proceedings under S.84 (2) of the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments -Act, the applicant-trustee had the right to adduce evidence in the District Court or whether the court was bound to decide the case only on the evidence in the proceedings before the Hindu Religious Endowments Board under S.84 (1). The case came up before the High Court on a revision petition filed by the applicant-trustee from an order of the