Temple trusteeship succession scheme upheld; bare Dharmakartha office is not property, and res judicata barred relitigation.

A bare Dharmakartha office of a South Indian temple, carrying only managerial duties and no beneficial interest or emoluments, is not property in the Hindu law sense, so the Tagore v. Tagore rule does not bar the founder's special scheme for succession; the scheme was therefore valid. The plaintiff was also barred by res judicata because earlier bona fide litigation between sufficiently represented parties had already decided the same trusteeship and mode of devolution, binding successors under Section 11 CPC. The appeal succeeded, the trial decree was set aside, and the suit failed on merits and on res judicata.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the rule in Tagore v. Tagore applies to the office of Dharmakartha of a South Indian temple where the founder has prescribed a special scheme of succession. (ii) Whether the plaintiff was barred by res judicata by reason of the earlier decision concerning the same temple trusteeship.

Issue (i): Whether the rule in Tagore v. Tagore applies to the office of Dharmakartha of a South Indian temple where the founder has prescribed a special scheme of succession.

Analysis: The office of Dharmakartha was treated as a bare managerial office carrying duties and obligations, not as property in the Hindu law sense when no beneficial interest or emoluments attached to it. The Court distinguished shebaitship and other offices involving proprietary incidents from a pure trusteeship. On that footing, the founder's power to create a scheme for selecting successive managers of the endowment was not treated as a prohibited alteration of the ordinary law of inheritance.

Conclusion: The rule in Tagore v. Tagore does not apply to the office of Dharmakartha under consideration, and the founder's scheme of succession is valid.

Issue (ii): Whether the plaintiff was barred by res judicata by reason of the earlier decision concerning the same temple trusteeship.

Analysis: The earlier suit had directly raised and decided the same questions about the mode of devolution of the trusteeship and the validity of the founder's scheme. The litigation was bona fide and all persons then interested in the office were on record. The office was one of continuous representation, and a decree against the then holders of the office bound their successors. Even though the present plaintiff was not eo nomine on record in the appeal stage of the former suit, the estate and office were sufficiently represented, and the requirements of Section 11 were satisfied.

Conclusion: The plaintiff is barred by res judicata from re-agitating the issue.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeds, the trial decree is set aside, and the plaintiff's suit fails both on merits and on the bar of res judicata.

Ratio Decidendi: A bare office of temple management, unaccompanied by beneficial interest or emoluments, is not property in the Hindu law sense so as to attract the Tagore rule; and where the earlier litigation on the same trusteeship was bona fide and the office was sufficiently represented, the decision binds successors under Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

---