IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 14TH JULY 2009 / 23RD ASHADHA 1931 RP.No. 990 of 2007() -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN RFA.123/2006 .................... REVIEW PETITIONERS/APPELLANTS:- 1. THAZHATHEYIL RAMESHAN, S/O SAMIKKUTTY, KOZHIKODE TALUK, NADUVATTOM AMSOM DESOM. 2. AVATHIKKANDI AJALESH, S/O SAHADEVAN, KOZHIKODE TALUK, PANNIYANKARA AMSOM DESOM. 3. PAYYANAKKAL CHANDRAN (DIED), S/O BAPPU, KOZHIKODE TALUK, PANNIYANKARA AMSOM, DESOM. 4. KADAPPATIL VIVEKANANDAN, S/O RARU, KOZHIKODE, PANNIYANKARA AMSOM DESOM. 5. KALATHUMMARATHU SAJEEVAN, S/O BHASKARAN, PANNIYANKARA AMSOM, DESOM KOZHIKODE. 6. PADANNA VALAPPIL RAMAN, S/O KANDAN, KOZHIKODE TALUK, PANNIYANKARA AMSOM DESOM. 7. KADAPPATIL VINOD KUMAR, S/O BHASKARAN, KOZHIKODE, PANNIYANKARA AMSOM DESOM. 8. PAYYANAKKAL SREEDHARAN, S/O IMPICHI, (DIED) PAYYANAKKAL BHAGAVATHI KSHETHRA KOMARAM, KOZHIKODE TALUK, PANNIYANKARA AMSOM DESOM. (IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 9.6.1997 IN I.A.626/1997) 9. ANAND BABU, S/O 8TH PLAINTIFF PAYYANAKKAL SREEDHARAN, RESIDING IN NADUVATTOM AMSOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK, KOZHIKODE. (IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 18.8.2003 IN I.A 1208/2003) BY ADV. MS. PRABHA R.MENON MR. M.KRISHNAKUMAR R.P. NO. 990/2007 : 2 : RESPONDENTS:- --------------- 1. PAYYANAKKAL SREE BHAGAVATHI KSHETHRA COMMITTEE, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VALIYAPARAMBATH DASAN. 2. PAYYANAKKAL SREE BHAGAVATHI KSHETHRA COMMITTEE, PRESIDENT, POONCHOLA APPOOTTY. ADV. MR. M.G.ASHOKAN FOR R1 & R2 MR. SHAJI PURUSHOTHAMAN MR. K.SANEESH KUMAR FOR R1 & R2 THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR , J. ------------------------------------------------------------- R.P. No. 990 of 2007 in R.F.A. No. 123 of 2006 ------------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 14th day of July, 2009. ORDER The plaintiffs in O.S. No. 228 of 1995 on the file of the Third Additional Sub Court, Kozhikode who were the appellants in R.F.A. No. 123 of 2006 before this Court, seek to review the judgment dated 30.03.2007 of this Court in the said R.F.A. The aforesaid suit was one for a declaration that the Payyanakkal Sree Bhagavathi Kshethram at Payyanikkal in Kozhikode is not a public trust, but a private trust exclusively belonging to seven tarwads and that the defendants or any member of the public do not have any right to question or interfere with the management or the administration of the said temple. The trial court dismissed the suit holding that the temple was a public temple. On appeal preferred before this Court as A.S. No. 203 of 1999, this Court as per judgment dated 06.01.2004 set aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial court and remanded the case for settlement of a scheme of administration under Section 92 C.P.C. Accordingly, the trial court framed a scheme. It was R.P. No. 990/2007 : 2 : challenging some of the clauses in the scheme that the plaintiffs filed R.F.A. No.123 of 2006 before this Court. This Court after hearing both sides as per the impugned judgment dated 30.03.2007 made certain modifications to the scheme. Since the temple was managed by seven tarwads, each tarwad was held entitled to nominate its own hereditary trustee. The number of non -hereditary trustees which was fixed at 14 in the scheme settled by the court below, was reduced to 7. It was further held that the thanthri will preside over the meetings and in case of a tie, he would have the right to exercise the casting vote. In all other respects, the scheme framed by the trial court was upheld. It is the said judgment which is sought to be reviewed. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners would contend that in view of Section 39(2) of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951, the number of non-hereditary trustees cannot exceed five and that it is the right of one family by name Thazhatheyil tarwad to appoint the thanthri and that if the scheme modified by this Court is put into operation, it will become unworkable. R.P. No. 990/2007 : 3 : 3. I cannot agree. The scheme as modified by this Court envisages a democratic set up as per which there is an equal number of non-hereditary trustees as there are hereditary trustees and the thanthri is given the casting vote and that too only in the event of a tie. I see no reason as to why such a scheme should become unworkable. I, therefore, do not find any good reason to review the judgment. There is no error apparent on the face of record so as to justify interference under Order 47 Rule 1 C.P.C. This review petition is accordingly dismissed. Dated this the 14th day of July, 2009. V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE. rv R.P. No. 990/2007 : 4 :