Decision rendered earlier by the High Court is conclusive.

The only question for decision in the appeal is whether the subject matter of the suit which is popularly known as Dhakshinamoorthy Math is really a math or a Samadhi.

2.The plaintiff M.V.P.B.Nammalwar filed the suit under Sec.70 of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 for setting aside the order passed by the Commissioner in A.P.No.191 of 1976 which arose out of a petition filed by him before the Deputy Commissioner in O.A.No.21 of 1975 for declaration that the Dhakshinamoorthy Math, is not a math within the meaning of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act. The Deputy Commissioner dismissed the petition and on appeal the Commissioner confirmed it. To set aside that order of the Commissioner, and to declare that the Dhakshinamoorthy Math is not a math the suit has been filed.

3. According to the plaintiff, Dhakshinamoorthy math, though it is called as math or Ashram, is only a Samadhi. The founder of the said Dhakshinamoorthy math viz., Vedanayagam Sami did not intend it to be a math or Ashram. As per the will executed by him Abishegam, Alangaram, Maha Neivedhyam and Gurupooja are to be conducted to the Samadhi of his Guru Michael, a Christian. There is a Samadhi of Kamel Sami. Similarly it is also stated in the will that Abishegam, Alangaram and Gurupooja shall be conducted to the Samadhi of Vedanayagam Swami also there. Therefore it is not a math but only a Samadhi and hence it does not come within the purview of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act. The further case of the plaintiff is that in A.S.No.2 of 1963 which arose out of O.S.No.61 of 1961 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Tirunelveli, in which the present defendant was the seventh defendant the High Court of Madras has held that Dhakshinamoorthy Ashram is only a Samadhi. Therefore the order of the Commissioner in A.P.No. 191 of 1976 declaring that the Dhakshinamoorthy Math is a math has to be set aside.

4. As against this defendant-Commissioner Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department contended that the subject-matter of the suit has been rightly held as an Ashram or math and not a Samadhi as pleaded, and that a reading of the will executed by Vedanayagam Swami would only show that the subject-matter of the suit is only a math. The decision of the High Court in A.S.No.2 of 1963 will not bind this defendant. The High Court in the earlier Judgment in A.A.O.No.472 of 1951 had declared the subject matter of the suit as only a math. This decision might not have been brought to the notice of the Judges who decided A.S.No.2 of 1963. Therefore Dhakshinamoorthy Math comes within the purview of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act 22 of 1959.

5. The trial court took the view that in A.S.No.2 of 1963, a Divisional Bench of the High Court has held that the subject-matter of the suit is a Samadhi, and in this judgment the earlier judgment of a Division Bench in A.A.O.No.472 of 1951 holding that the subject matter of the suit is a math has been referred to, and therefore the finding in the judgment in A.S.No.2 of 1963 has to be followed. Therefore, the trial Court held that the subject-matter of the suit is a Samadhi and decreed the suit as prayed for.

6. Now in the appeal by the defendant-Commissioner, H.R. & C.E., it is contended that the trial court is in error instating that in A.S.No.2 of 1963 the High Court has held that the subject-matter of the suit is only a Samadhi and that as against the earlier decision of the High Court in A.A.O.No.472 of 1951 the decision in A.S.No.2 of 1963 has to be followed. It appears this argument has much force. 7. The earlier judgment of the High Court in A.A.O.No.472 of 1951 has been filed Ex.10 and the lower Court Order from which that appeal arose has been filed as Ex.A-9 which has been rendered in O.P.No.85 of 1949, and the later decision of the High Court in A.S.No.2 of 1963 has been filed as Ex.A-6 and the Judgment