IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 8TH AUGUST 2011 / 17TH SRAVANA 1933 OP(C).No. 1421 of 2011(O) -------------------------------------- OS.NO.714/2010 of ADDL.SUB COURT, IRINJALAKUDA .................... PETITIONERS/ DEFENDANTS -------------------------------------------- 1. RAMACHANDRAN S/O.KARAPILLY KUTTAPPAN, PARIYARAM VILLAGE, PARIYARAM DESOM, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK. 2. RADHA VELAYUDHAN, KARAPILLY HOUSE, PARIYARAM VILLAGE, PARIYARAM DESOM, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK. 3. VELAYUDHAN S/O. KARAPILLY KUTTAPPAN, PARIYARAM VILLAGE, PARIYARAM DESOM, 4. ANILKUMAR, S/O.KARAPILLY SANKARAN, EAST CHALAKUDY VILLAGE KOODAPUZHA DESOM. 5. SARALA SASI, W/O. KARAPILLY SASI, EAST CHALAKUDY VILLAGE POTTA DESOM. 6. MOHANAN, S/O. MULIYAMPARAMBIL KUTTAPPAN, CHALAKUDY VILLAGE VR PURAM, PARAMBI ROAD DESOM. 7. SHYLAJA, W/O.KARAPILLY GOPI, PARIYARAM VILLAGE, PARIYARAM DESOM BY ADV. SRI.T.N.MANOJ RESPONDENT(S)/ PLAINTIFF AND DEFENDANT -------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. PARIYARAM DHARMA SASTA TEMPLE IDOL REPRESENTED BY DEVOTEE, RADHAKRISHNAN, S/O.INAMPILLY KARUNAN, PARIYARAM VILLAGE AND DESOM, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK.PIN-691 585 2. PARIYARAM DHARMA SASTA TEMPLE IDOL REPRESENTED BY DEVOTEE, BABU,S/O.MONATHOTTATHIL KUTTAPPAN, PARIYARAM VILLAGE, MOTHIRAKANNI DESOM, MUKUNDAPURAM.PIN-691 585 3. SREEDHARMA SASTA TEMPLE TRUST, PARIYARAM VILLAGE DESOM, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT KRISHNANKUTTY S/O. VELAYUDHAN, PARIYARAM VILLAGE AND DESOM, KARAPILLY HOUSE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK.PIN-691 585. R1 & R2 BY ADV. SMT.P.R.REENA THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts OP(C)NO.1421/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1 COPY OF THE PLAINT IN OS 714/2010 P2 COPY OF THE ORDER IN IA 4577/2010 P3 COPY OF THE OBJECTIONS TO IA 4577/2010 P4 COPY OF THE PLAINT IN OS 452/2008 P5 COPY OF THE ORDERIN IA 2329/2008 IN OS 452/2008 P6 COPY OF THE DOCUMENT NO 1057/1970 P7 COPY OF THE ORDER IN IA 4577/2010 P8 COPY OF THE INTERIM COMMISSION REPORT P9 COPY OF THE IA 63/2011 P10 COPY OF THE OBJECTIONS TO IA 63/2011 P11 COPY OF THE ORDER IN IA 63/2011 RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO.JUDGE sts THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- O.P.(C) No.1421 of 2011 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 8th day of August, 2011. JUDGMENT 3rd respondent is served through counsel appearing in the trial court but, there is no response. Service of notice on 3rd respondent is declared sufficient. Respondents 1 and 2 appeared through counsel. 2. Respondents 1 and 2 filed O.S.No.714 of 2010 in the court of learned Additional Sub Judge, Irinjalakuda under Section 92 read with Order 1 Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, “the Code”) requesting to frame a scheme for the management and maintenance of the Pariyaram Sreedharma Sastha Temple. (Though there is a dispute as to whether leave under Section 92 of the Code was granted, I obtained information from the learned Additional Sub Judge through Registrar (Judicial). I am told that leave was sanctioned on 17.12.2010 as per order on I.A.No.4575 of 2010.) 3. Learned Additional Sub Judge passed Ext.P2, order of injunction against petitioners on I.A.No.4577 of 2010 regarding opening of hundies in the temple. Later that order was modified as per Ext.P7, order directing the parties to maintain status quo and the Advocate Commissioner was directed to seal the hundies. Key of the hundies, it is claimed, remained with petitioners. As per Ext.P7, order, it was also directed that the offerings in the hundies are to be counted in the presence of the Advocate Commissioner and the parties, twice a OP(C) No.1421/2011 2 month. The Advocate Commissioner was to then to seal the hundies. When the Advocate Commissioner attempted to comply with the direction in Ext.P7, order there appears to have arisen some dispute between the parties as to what is to be done with the amount thus ascertained. Thereon the Advocate Commissioner submitted Ext.P8, interim report on which learned Sub Judge passed an order (which is extracted in paragraph 6 of page 5 of the Original Petition) which is to be effect that “the Commissioner is directed to count the offering of the Bandaram and deposit the offering in the court.” Thereafter, 3rd respondent//8th defendant filed Ext.P9, application that the amount be given to the trust (3rd respondent). Though petitioners preferred Ext.P10, objection the request was allowed by Ext.P11, order. Ext.P11, order is under challenge. 4. Learned counsel for petitioner has contended that it is without even considering Ext.P10, objection that learned Sub Judge has disposed of Ext.P9, application allowing the amount be entrusted to the 3rd respondent. According to the learned counsel, 3rd respondent is not managing the affairs of the temple. It is contended that petitioners are in management and administration of the temple and hence they are entitled to get the amount ascertained by the Advocate Commissioner. Certain documents are shown to me to buttress that argument. 5. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for respondents 1 and 2 OP(C) No.1421/2011 3 contends that the concern of respondents 1 and 2 is only that unless the amount is periodically collected from the hundies it will get filled up, the devotees will not be able to offer amounts and the possibility of same being misused cannot be ruled out. 6. Having regard to the facts and circumstances I do not find reason to interfere with Ext.P7, order modifying the order of injunction whereby learned Additional Sub Judge directed that offerings collected in the hundies be counted in the presence of the Advocate Commissioner as directed in Ext.P7. There is also no reason why I should interfere with the order that learned Additional Sub Judge has passed based on Ext.P8, interim report of the Advocate Commissioner. It is seen from Ext.P11, order that learned Additional Sub Judge has not given much consideration to the objection of petitioners. Though learned counsel for petitioners produced certain documents before me I do not consider it is appropriate for me to consider the same. That is a matter which the learned Additional Sub Judge has to decide. 7. At the same time until the matter is decided the present arrangement whereby the amount deposited in court is directed to be given to the 3rd respondent for administration and management of the temple has to remain in force. Resultantly this Original Petition is allowed in the following lines: OP(C) No.1421/2011 4 i. Ext.P11, order is set aside and I.A.No.63 of 2011 (in O.S.No.714 of 2010) of the court of learned Additional Sub Judge, Irinjalakuda is remitted to the learned Additional Sub Judge for fresh decision as to who among the contestants is entitled to get the amount collected from the hundies as ascertained by the Advocate Commissioner and deposited in the court. ii. Until learned Additional Sub Judge decides that question the present arrangement whereby the 3rd respondent (8th defendant) is allowed to receive the amount will continue. iii. Learned Additional Sub Judge is directed to dispose of I.A.No.63 of 2011 as early as possible having regard to the grievance of parties. I.A.No.9698 of 2011 will stand closed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks