At that time the question arose whether the suit properties were the properties of the temple.
The appellant denied the respondents claim.
It is said that the said decision operates as res judicata against the claim made by the appellant.
He has also asked for an injunction restraining the appellant from interfering with his possession and enjoyment.
The High Court as well as the appellate companyrt have upheld the respondents claim on the ground that the appellants claim is barred by res judicata.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and decree dated September 1, 1966 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Second Appeal No.
The respondents family put forward the claim that those properties had been granted to them as archakatwam service inam and companysequently those properties were number temple properties.
719 of 1962.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
In the suit under appeal the respondent who is an archaka in the appellant temple prayed for a declaration that the suit properties had been granted to his family as archakatwam service Inam land and that the appellant has numberright therein.
That companytention was accepted by the Board.
431 of 1967.
In 1931 the Madras Religious Endowments Board framed a scheme for the better management of the appellant temple.
Venugopal Reddy and K. Jayaram, for the appellants.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Hegde, J. The point in companytroversy in this appeal by special leave is whether the properties in dispute herein companystitute a hereditary archakatwam service inam granted to the plaintiffs predecessors or whether they are the properties of the appellant temple.
Parthasarathy, for the respondent.
