https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=299260 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. en-us Fri, 16 Jan 1970 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 08 Dec 2021 15:16:43 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=299260 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. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 16 Jan 1970 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=299260