GOVARDHANAM APPALACHARYULU Vs. GOVARDHANAM RANGACHARYULU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The substantial question for determination in this second appeal is whether the judgment in a prior litigation between the same parties constitute res judicata. The facts leading upto this point are these.

(2.) The first defendant and the plaintiff were brothers, defendants 2 and 3 being the son and wife respectively of the former. They were the hreditary archakas of a temple of Sri Venugopalaswamy of Vadlamannadu. They belonged to the Vaighanasa sub-sect among the Andhra Sri Vaishnavites. 15 acres of land were allotted as service inams for the archaka service in the temple. The first defendant was in possession of 7 /2 acres and the plaintiff in possession of an equal extent.

(3.) They had to perform service in the temple in alternative Telugu months. According to the plaintiff he had performed archaka service in the suit temple in the month of Jeshtam of the year Tharana, and after his turn was over, he called upon the first defendant to do the service during the month of Ashadam. The first defendant refused to perform the service stating that the temple had become polluted by reason of the plaintiff having dined in the house of one Rompicherla Narasimha charyulu who though belonging to Vaighanasa sub-sect married a non-vaighanasa girl as his second wife and so he could not do service in the temple unless samprokshana was performed by the plaintiff or in the alternative pay the first defendant Rs. 300 for the expenses of the samprokshana. The plaintiff, therefore, performed the service for 9 1/2 months and the first defendant refused to compensate him. For the services rendered by him he filed a suit O.S. No. 509 of 1945 for recovery of Rs. 475 at the rate of Rs. 50 per month. That suit was contested by the first defendant that the plaintiff permitted the above-mentioned Narasimhacharyulu to perform the archaka service as a proxy and that the temple had therefore become polluted, that samprokshana had to be done to the idol in the temple at an estimated cost of Rs. 300, that, as the plaintiff refused to pay the amount or get the Samprokshana done, the defendant was justified in refusing to perform the Archaka service and that, therefore, the plaintiff could not claim any compensation or remuneration as the default was solely on his part. The defence was negatived and the suit was decreed at the rate of Rs. 35 a month.