Judgment :- P.R. SHIVAKUMAR, J. The representatives of Hindu. Servai community people residing at Theranipalayam village, Lalgudi Taluk,Tiruchirappalli District were the plaintiffs in the Original suit. Having failed in both the Courts below in their attempt to get a declaration that the members of Hindu Servai community residing at Theranipalayam village constituted, a religious denomination and that the suit temples namely Arulmighu Varadharaja Perumal Swami Temple, Amirthavakeeswarar Swami Temple, Vinayagar Swami Temple, Dharmaraja Swami Temples were denominational temples established and managed by the said denomination, they have come to this Court by way of the Second Appeal. 2. The suit was resisted by the respondents herein/defendants, the authorities under the H.R. & C.E. Act, denying the claim that the members of Hindu Servai Community of the village constituted on religious denomination and that the suit temples were established and managed by the said denomination. It was the further contention of the respondents/defendants that by virtue of the judgment in O.S. No. 416 of 1970 on the file of the Subordinate Judge which ultimately culminated in the judgment of the High Court, Madras in Second Appeal No. 2028 of 1979, the present suit by the appellants/Plaintiffs was barred by the principle of res judicata and that the temples being religious institutions not belonging to any religious denomination by virtue of the powers conferred on the respondents/defendants under the H.R. & C.E. Act, they could appoint non-hereditary trustees and the same could not be questioned by the appellants/plaintiffs. 3. The trial Court after conclusion of the trial on appreciation of the evidence, dismissed the suit by its judgment and decree dated 26.10.1993. As against the same the appellants herein/defendants preferred an appeal on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Tiruchirappalli in A.S. No. 245 of 1993. The learned Judge after hearing both sides confirmed the judgment and decree of the trial Court and dismissed the appeal. Hence the appellants/plaintiffs have brought forth this Second Appeal as against the concurrent judgment in A.S. No. 245 of 1993, dated 11.9.1996 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Tiruchy. 4. The arguments advanced by Mr. T.N. Rajagopal, the, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. K.M. Vijayakumar, the learned Additional Government Pleader representing the respondents have been heard. The relevant records including the judgments of the Courts below have been perused. 5. 4. The arguments advanced by Mr. T.N. Rajagopal, the, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. K.M. Vijayakumar, the learned Additional Government Pleader representing the respondents have been heard. The relevant records including the judgments of the Courts below have been perused. 5. This Second Appeal happened to be admitted on the following question of law: 1. Whether the Courts below are right in dismissing the suit on the ground of res judicata when the relief sought in the earlier suit was entirely different from than that of the present suite 6. The appellants/plaintiffs have come to the Court with a specific pleading that the members of Hindu Servai Community residing at Theranipalayam Village, Lalgudi Taluk,Tiruchirappalli have constituted a religious denomination and that the suit temples are the temples established and managed by the said denomination. When the prayer in the suit happens to be one for declaration” that the suit temples are denominational temples, in order succeed in the suit, two conditions have got to be established. The plaintiffs should prove: (1) that they constitute a religious denomination; and (2) that the temples in question were established and are managed by the said denominatione 7. Article 26 of the Constitution of India guarantees the right of a religious denomination or any Section thereof to establish and maintain institutions for religious and charitable purposes and to manage its own affairs in the matters of religion. Even the said right guaranteed under the Constitution established is not absolute but subject to public order, morality and health. The said right has been again confirmed and restated under Section 107 of the H R & CE Act, 1959. But neither in the constitution nor in the Act the term religious denomination has been defined. As such, we have to seek the aid of the judicial pronouncements to ascertain the meaning of ‘religious denomination‘. In this regard it is not necessary to traverse all the judgments relating to this aspect. Suffice to refer to the latest judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in Nellor Marthandam Vellalar and Others v. Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments and Others Nellor Marthandam Vellalar and Others v. Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments and Others Nellor Marthandam Vellalar and Others v. Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments and Others (2003) 3 MLJ 129 (SC) . In para 8 of the said judgment, it has been observed as follows at p. 132 of MLJ: “ 8. It is settled position in law having regard to it he various decisions, of this Court that the words “religious denomination” must satisfy three requirements (1) it must be collection of individuals who have a system of belief or doctrine which they regard as conducive to their spiritual well-being, i. e., a common faith; (2) a common organisation and (3) designation of a distinctive name. It necessarily follows that the common faith of the community should be based on religion and in that they should have common religious tenets and the basics cord which connects them, should: be religion and not merely considerations of case or community or societal status….” 8. It is quite obvious from the said observations made by the Honourable Supreme Court Of India, to constitute a religious denomination there should be a collection of individuals who do have system of belief or doctrine which they regard as conducive to their spiritual well-being, otherwise called a common faith. It should also have a definite name. Here in this case the definite name of the plaintiffs group is some what elusive. The common faith of the collection of individuals should be based on religion and they would have common religious tenet which shall be the cord that binds them together as a single group. Caste or community considerations shall not be the basis on which a group could be accorded status of religious denomination. When these principles are applied to the facts of the case on hand, undoubtedly the only conclusion that can be arrived at is that the plaintiffs have miserably failed to prove that their contentions conform to any one, of the above said requirements for acquiring, the status of a religious denomination. In fact there is not even a plea that they have a common religious tenet for themselves. Except, the fact that all belong to Servai community, there is no other basis stated either in the pleading or in the evidence for their claim of status of a religious denomination. There is absence of pleading as well as evidence to show that they are bound by a religious cord to make them a group in themselves to show that the group is a religious denomination. There is absence of pleading as well as evidence to show that they are bound by a religious cord to make them a group in themselves to show that the group is a religious denomination. Under these circumstances, the Court entertains no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that the appellants/plaintiffs have miserably failed to substantiate their contention that they constitute a religious denomination which is necessary forgetting a declaration that the suit temples are denominational temples based on which the consequential reliefs could be claimed. 9. The Courts below have also held that the present claim of the plaintiffs for declaration that the suit temples are denominational temples belonging to the members of Servai community of Theranipalayam Village, Lalgudi taluk,Tiruchirappalli District is barred by the Principle of res judicata. On a previous occasion when the department issued notification for appointment of non-hereditary trustees to the suit temples, O.S. No. 416 of 1970 on the file of the 1st Additional Sub ordinate Judge, Tiruchirappalli happened to be instituted by V. Kandasamy and N.Kandasamy representing two Sections of the members of the Servai community residing in Theranipalayam village, Lalgudi Taluk, Tiruchirappalli District, called Kothus 1 and 2, for a declaration that they alone were entitled to the management of the suit temples. In the said suit, apart from the Commissioner, H.R. & C.E., representatives of other Kothus, namely Kothu No. 3 were also made parties as defendants 2,3 and 4. It is pertinent to note, in the said case the people belonging to the representatives of all the three Kothus fought with each other for trusteeship alone. None of them chose to raise the contention that all the members of the Servai community residing in Theranipalayam Village, Lalgudi Taluk,Tiruchirappalli District constituted a denomination or that each Kothu formed a Section of the said denomination. Though no specific issue was framed as to whether the members of the servai community of Theranipalayam Village as a whole, or any one of the above said three Kothus formed a religious denomination, a clear finding has been rendered to the effect that the temples in question could not have been established by the members of Servai community of Theranipalayam village alone and that the members of other community residing at the very same village also had their share in the management of the temple.. The certified copy of the Printed judgment of the Additional Subordinate Judge in O.S. No. 416 of 1970 is Exhibit B-4. The said judgment was unsuccessfully challenged before the District Judge, Tiruchirappalli in A.S. No. 494 of 1975. The said judgment made in A.S. No. 494 of 1975 by the District Judge, Tiruchirappalli was challenged before the High Court, Madras in Second Appeal No. 28 of 1979. The said second appeal was also dismissed confirming the judgments of the lower Courts. 10. It is found from the judgment of the High Court Madras dated 24.9.2007 made in S.A. No. 2028 of 1979, the said Second Appeal had been admitted on two substantial questions of law which are extracted as under: (1) Whether the facts as established by evidence clearly prove that all the five temples are denominational institutions and consequently the H.R. & C.E. (A) Department has no jurisdiction over these institutions or their managemente And (2) Whether the Courts below are right in relying upon the observations in O.S. No. 380 of 1965 against the plaintiffs that the plaintiffs have succeeded in entirety in the said suit, and therefore they had no opportunity to contest those observations or findingse Of course there is no direct finding, regarding the first substantial question of law as to whether the suit temples were denominational temples. Relying on the absence of a direct finding regarding the same, the learned counsel for the appellants argued that the judgments of the trial Court in O.S. No. 416 of 1970 which got confirmed by the District Judge in A.S. No. 494 of 1975 and ultimately by the High Court in S.A. No. 2028 of 1979, would not amount to res judicata as the said question though raised at the time of admission of Second Appeal was not finally decided. For the above said contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Additional Government Pleader would contend that Explanation IV to Section 11 of Civil Procedure Code will be attracted to the case on hand to non suit the plaintiffs on the principle of constructive res judicata. Admittedly, the representatives of the three factions of Servai community residing at Theranipalayam village were parties in the above said former suit. Admittedly, the representatives of the three factions of Servai community residing at Theranipalayam village were parties in the above said former suit. Aggrieved by the steps taken by the Commissioner of H.R. & C.E. to appoint non-hereditary trustees to the suit temples, the above said previous suit was filed. The plea that the suit temples were denominational temples belonging to the Servai community of Theranipalayam village was very much available to assail the steps taken by the Commissioner, H.R. & C.E. to appoint non-hereditary trustees in the absence of any allegation of mismanagement or malpractice. As such, the failure to raise the said plea, according to the submissions made by the learned Additional Government Pleader representing the respondents, would amount to constructive res judicata if viewed in the light of Explanation IV to Section 11 of Civil Procedure Code. This Court finds substance and force in the said contention raised by the learned Additional Government Pleader and hence countenances the same. 11. For all the reasons stated above, though there was no direct plea claiming denominational status in the former suit the principle of constructive res judicata is applicable and hence the findings of the Courts below in the present suit of the appellants/plaintiffs is barred by res judicata has got to be sustained and confirmed. In view of the above said discussions and the findings recorded, this Court comes to the conclusion that there is no merit in the Second Appeal and the same has got to be dismissed with the result that the judgments of the Courts below shall be confirmed. 12. In the result, this Second Appeal is dismissed. No costs.