A judgment in an earlier proceeding, though not a judgment in rem, can be treated as a precedent in determining the character of a temple, especially in a subsequent case between third parties and one of the parties to the earlier proceedings.

1. With the consent of both sides, the appeals are taken up for final disposal.

2. These two appeals are preferred by the defendants in the two suits. They are tenants under the common plaintiff. The suits are for eviction. The plaintiff is a Bajanai Madam or Hanumar temple and is represented by its hereditary trustee. The main defence raised by the defendants in both the cases is that the suit is not maintainable in the Civil Court in as much as they are entitled to the benefits of Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act and according to them, the remedy of the plaintiff, if any, should be only by taking appropriate proceedings under that Act. That contention was sought to be met by the plaintiff by invoking the provisions of G.O.Ms. No. 2000, Home dated 16th August, 1976 exempting all buildings owned by a Hindu, Christian or Muslim religious public trusts and public charitable trusts from all the provisions of the said Act. The contention of the defendants is that the exemption will not apply as the trust is not a public trust and the temple is a private temple. The contention was negatived by both the Courts and the defendants have preferred these Second Appeals.

3. It is not in dispute that there was a proceeding between the trustee of the plaintiff trust on the one hand and the H.R.&C.E. Department on the other, in which the trustee claimed that the temple was a private one and would not come under the control of the department. That contention was negatived by the trial court as well as this Court. The judgement of this Court is reported in K. Lakshmi Venkatrama Rao v. The Commissioner, Hindu Rreligious and Charitable Endowments (1972) II M.L.J. 93). The court held that the temple is a ‘public temple’ as defined in Section 6(20) of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act. The judgement of this Court has been marked as Ex. A-35 in the lower appellate Court. While the trial Court held that the judgment would be a judgment in rem and binding on the appellants herein, the appellate Court differed from the trial Court and held that it was not a judgment in rem. But the appellate Court held that it would have evidentiary value and could be considered along with the other evidence. The appellate Court proceeded to refer to Exs. A-18 to A-22 receipts issued by the department in acknowledgment of payment of contribution by the plaintiff and Exs. A-23 to A-26, the audit reports. It has also referred to Ex. A-27, the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Endowments with regard to the expenditure to be incurred, for a special worship. Relying on such documents, the appellate Court has found that there is ample evidence to prove that the temple is a public temple.

4. The contention on behalf of the appellants is that the judgment of this Court in K. Lakshmi Venkatrama Raos case ((1972) II M.L.J. 93) is not a judgment in rem and it is not binding on the appellants. According to learned counsel, it can only be a piece of evidence to be considered along with the other evidence on record. It is submitted that the burden is on the plaintiff to plead that the temple is a ‘public temple’ and the provisions of Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act will not apply in view of the exemption granted by G.O.Ms. No. 2000, Home dated 16th August, 1976. According to learned counsel, there is no such plea in the plaints in the present case; nor is any attempt made to establish by evidence the said fact. Learned counsel contends that the documents relied on by the lower appellate Court do only prove that the trustees were abiding by the judgment rendered by this Court in K. Lakshmi Venkatrama Raos case ((1972) II M.L.J. 93) and that was only an act in, pursuance of the judgment. It cannot be considered to be an independent act by which the temple can be treated as a “public temple’.

5. I am unable to accept this contention. No doubt, there is no specific plea that the plaintiff is exempted from the prov