Venkatasubba Rao, J.

1. The question raised in this appeal is whether the present suit is barred by res judicata by reason of the decree in O.S. No. 846 of 1923. The bar that is pleaded is not confined to any particular matter in issue but extends to the entire claim. The suit has been brought by one Rayarappan Nambiyar, who fills the dual position of (1) the karnavan of Karakath Idam and (2) the Uralan of Kadamberi Devaswom where the presiding deity is Bhagavathi; in other words, the plaintiffs right to hold the trusteeship of the temple arises from his being the manager of his tarwad. Several reliefs are claimed in the plaint over, what is alleged to be a subsidiary shrine known as Muttapan Devasthanam, under the control of one Valia Ramunni, the karnavan of a Thiya tarwad, and as such, the "Matayan" or the head of the shrine in question. 1 he plaintiff s case shortly is that the defendant shrine is a subsidiary temple owing allegiance to its suzerain - the Kadamberi Devaswom - and bound to render it homage inter alia by making certain recurring payments. There are some other reliefs which are claimed, to which it will become necessary to refer presently. The question is,