IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN MONDAY, THE 15TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 26TH MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 4679 of 2010(O) ------------------------- CMA.116/2009 of DISTRICT COURT, PALAKKAD OS.340/2009 of SUB COURT, OTTAPPALAM .................... PETITIONER : ------------------ P.BALAN NAIR, AGED 83 YEARS, S/O.DEVAKI AMMA, RADHALAYAM, PALAVAZHI MOOPPIL NIR, PARAMBARYA TRUSTEE, SREE THALAYINAKKAD SIVA TEMPLE, KADAMBOOR PO, OTTAPPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADVS. MR.M.RAMESH CHANDER SMT.K.A.SANJEETHA RESPONDENT : -------------------- THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD, OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, CIVIL STATION, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. MR.K.MOHANAKANNAN, STANDING COUNCIL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JVT P. BHAVADASAN, J. =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~= W.P.(C) No. 4679 of 2010 =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~= Dated this the 15th day of February, 2010 JUDGMENT Aggrieved by the concurrent findings of the courts below regarding the right of the petitioner as the hereditary trustee, he has approached this Court by filing this writ petition. 2. Petitioner instituted suit O.S.No.340 of 2009 before the Sub Court, Ottappalam seeking for a declaration that the Thalayinakkad Siva Temple is a family temple of the petitioner who is the hereditary trustee. I.A. No.2642 of 2009 was filed in the said suit seeking interim injunction against the respondent from interfering with the administration of the temple. It is specifically contended that no notification under section 38 of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951 was passed as regards the temple continues to be a private temple. 3. The respondent entered appearance and contended that the non-hereditary trustees were appointed by the W.P.(C) No. 4679/2010 2 Board and claim of the petitioner that the temple is a private temple cannot be accepted. 4. On appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, the trial court came to the conclusion that the petitioner has not succeeded in establishing a prima facie case so as to obtain an order of injunction and accordingly dismissed the application. 5. The petitioner took up the matter in appeal as C.M.A.No.116 of 2009. The appellate court on re- consideration of the materials, concurred with the finding of the trial court and dismissed the appeal. The said order is under challenge in this writ petition. 6. Both the courts below have found that the Thalayanakkad Siva Temple is a public temple, being administered by the respondent by appointing non- hereditary trustees. True the respondent before the court below has not produced the notification under section 38 of the Act. Both the courts below have adverted to certain documents and events, which would reveal that non- hereditary trustees are appointed by the Board. Those acts W.P.(C) No. 4679/2010 3 persuaded the courts below to prima facie hold that even in the absence of a notification under section 38 of the Act, it would appear that the Board was exercising control. It cannot be said that those observations are not proper or unwarranted. 7. Faced with the above situation, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner sought for a direction for early disposal of the suit. 8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the court below is directed to dispose of O.S. No. 340 of 2009 as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The court below shall dispose of the matter untrammelled by any of the observations made in this order while disposing of the suit. This writ petition is disposed of as above. P.BHAVADASAN, JUDGE. mn.