IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN THURSDAY, THE 8TH OCTOBER 2009 / 16TH ASWINA 1931 WP(C).No. 2517 of 2009(Y) ------------------------- CMA.27/2008 of DISTRICT COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA OS.192/2005 of SUB COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA (IA 922/07) .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. SURENDRAN UNNITHAN, S/O.NARAYANA KURUP, VELLAYIL VEEDU, MANNADIYILKALAYIKKUPADINJARUKIZHAKKU PADINJARE MURI, KADAMPANADU VILLAGE, ADOOR TALUK. 2. MANNADI MUDIPPURA DEVI KSHETHRA SAMITHI P.205/2005 REPRESENTED BY G.MADHU, S/O.GOPALA PILLAI, PANJAJANYAM HOUSE, MANNADIYILKALAYIKKUPADINJARUKIZHAKKU PADINJARE MURI, KADAMPANADU VILLAGE, ADOOR TALUK. 3. K.THULASIDHARAN, PRESIDENT, MANNADI MUDIPPURA DEVI KSHETHRA SAMITHI P.205/2005 REPRESENTED BY G.MADHU, S/O.KUTTAPPAN, VELASSERIL HOUSE, MANNADIYILKALAYIKKUPADINJARUKIZHAKKU PADINJARE MURI, KADAMPANADU VILLAGE, ADOOR TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.K.RAMAKUMAR, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.T.RAMPRASAD UNNI SRI.J.R.PREM NAVAZ RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. SAKTHIBADRAN PANDARATHIL, VAKKAVANHIPUZHA MADOM, MANNADIYILKALAYIKKUPADINJARUKIZHAKKU PADINJARE KADAMPANADU VILLAGE, ADOOR TALUK. 2. LEKSHMI DASAN PANDARATHIL, VAKKAVANHIPUZHA MADOM MANNADIYILKALAYIKKUPADINJARUKIZHAKKU PADINJARE KADAMPANADU VILLAGE, ADOOR TALUK. WPC.2517/09 3. PARAMESWARU PANDARATHIL, VAKKAVANHIPUZHA MADOM MANNADIYILKALAYIKKUPADINJARUKIZHAKKU PADINJARE KADAMPANADU VILLAGE, ADOOR TALUK. 4. MANNADISNDP SAKHA YOGHAM NO.169, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY N.NARAYANAN, RAKESH BHAVAN, MANNADI P.O., KADAMPANADU VILLAGE. 5. VELUTHAMPI SMARAKA N.S.S. KARAYOGAM NO.104, MANNADI, REPRESENTED BY PRABHAKARANPILLAI, S/O.GOPALA PILLAI, JAYA BHAVAN, KALAYIKKUPADINJARU MURI, KADAMPANADU VILLAGE. ADOOR TALUK. 6. PRABHAKARAN PILLAI, S/O.GOPALA PILLAI, JAYA BHAVAN, KALAYIKKUPADINJARU MURI, KADAMPANADU VILLAGE. ADOOR TALUK. 7. M.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR, S/O.MADHAVAN NAIR, ARAPURAVILA VEEDU, KALAYIKKUPADINJARU MURI, KADAMPANADU VILLAGE. ADOOR TALUK. 8. S.MOHANAN PILLAI, S/O.SANKARAN NAIR, KADUVINAL KIZHAKKETHIL, MANNADI, KADAMPANADU VILLAGE, ADOOR TALUK. ADV. SRI.D.KISHORE FOR R1 TO 4 SRI.R.T.PRADEEP FOR R5 TO 8 SRI.V.VIJULAL FOR R5 TO 8 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC.2517/09 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF PETITION ALONG WITH AFFIDAVIT FILED BY R1 TO R4 IN I.A.NO.922 OF 2007 IN O.S.NO.192 OF 2005 BEFORE THE SUBORDINATE JUDGE'S COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA. EXT.P2: COPY OF COUNTER AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE PETITIONERS HEREIN IN I.A.NO.922 OF 2007 IN O.S.NO.192 OF 2005 BEFORE THE SUBORDINATE JUDGE'S COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA. EXT.P3: COPY OF ORDER DATED 28.1.2006 IN I.A.NO.1295 OF 2005 ON THE FILE OF THE SUBORDINATE JUDGE'S COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA. EXT.P4: COPY OF ORDER DATED 9.2.2007 IN C.M.A.NO.6 OF 2006 ON THE FILE OF THE DISTRICT COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE ORDER IN I.A.NO.922 OF 2007 IN O.S.NO.192 OF 2005 ON THE FILE OF THE SUB COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA. EXT.P6: COPY OF ORDER NO.B2.921/06 DATED 14.2.2007 BY THE SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE, ADOOR. EXT.P7: COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 6.12.2008 IN C.M.A.27 OF 2008 ON THE FILE OF THE DISTRICT COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA. /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C).NO.2517 OF 2009 (Y) ----------------------------------- Dated this the 8th day of October, 2009 J U D G M E N T The writ petition is filed seeking mainly the following relief: i. to call for the records leading upto Exts.P5 and P7 and quash the same by the issuance of a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction. 2. Petitioners are the plaintiffs in O.S.No.192 of 2005 on the file of the Sub Court, Pathanamthitta. Suit is for a declaration and injunction, and the respondents are the defendants. The dispute involved in the suit relate to the title and possession and also administration of a temple, more WPC.2517/09 2 particularly, a 'Mudippura'. The factual matrix of the disputes covered by the suit does not arise for consideration in the present writ petition as it has been submitted by both sides that the trial of the suit has already commenced with the evidence partly recorded. Challenge raised in the writ petition by the petitioners/plaintiffs is against appointment of a receiver over the plaint property comprising the temple, which, ordered by the trial court has been confirmed in appeal by the learned District Judge, Pathanamthitta. Admittedly, in view of the wrangling between the parties for possession and administration of the temple, which gave rise to law and order problems, proceedings under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure had been initiated by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, and previous to the appointment of the receiver, the possession of the temple had been taken over by the Magistrate. However, later in view of the pendency of the civil suit, and the civil court seizing the matter, proceedings initiated by the Sub Divisional Magistrate as aforesaid were dropped. Possession was taken over from the plaintiffs by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, and in view of the orders passed by WPC.2517/09 3 this Court in other proceedings relating to police protection etc. even after appointment, the receiver, never came into possession, but, only supervised the festival, which was conducted only on one day in a year, subject to the orders passed by this Court, is the submission of the learned counsel for the plaintiffs contending that the statusquo ante, which prevailed at the time when the Sub Divisional Magistrate took over possession has to be judicially recognised and approved. The Mudippura over which rival claims are set up in respect of its title and administration by the parties to the proceedings, it is submitted, has no daily poojas, but, only a festival in a year on a single day. So much so, the appointment of a receiver over the plaint property comprising the Mudippura for its administration as ordered by the court below, was not proper and correct, and as the materials prima facie indicate that possession was taken over from the plaintiffs by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, they should be allowed to administer the temple till final adjudication of the suit, is the submission of the learned counsel for the plaintiffs. Receiver has already taken over possession of the property, and pursuant to that, WPC.2517/09 4 the administration of the temple subject to orders passed by the court, is conducted by him, is the submission of the learned counsel for the respondents. 3. Having regard to the submissions made as above, Registry was directed to ascertain whether the receiver has taken over possession of the plaint property and continue in administration of the temple pursuant to the order of his appointment by the court. It is reported by the Registry that the receiver in his report dated 24.3.2008 had reported to the court below as to his taking over the properties and custody of the key and connected records on 28.2.2008 from the President of the Kshetra Samrakshana Samithi, issuing an acknowledgment. Though such report was filed by the receiver a few days after taking over the plaint property and the records of the temple, I find no reason to doubt the assertion of the receiver as to his taking over the possession on 28.2.2008 from the President of the Kshethra Samrakshana Samithi, since, admittedly, the veracity of that report has not been challenged before any forum. Evidently, the receiver WPC.2517/09 5 appointed by the court, an advocate of Pathanamthitta Bar now continues in possession of the plaint property and administration of the temple. The trial of the case has already commenced with evidence of the plaintiffs partly recored. In such state of affairs, in exercise of the visitorial jurisdiction vested with this Court, at this stage, I find it not proper and appropriate to examine the merit of the impugned orders challenged in the writ petition. An early disposal of the suit giving a quietus to the whole controversy is the need of the hour. Having regard to the above facts and also that previously a proceeding had to be initiated by the Sub Divisional Magistrate in view of the wranglings by the parties setting up rival claims of title and possession over the property, which, on account of the pendency of the suit, had later been withdrawn, I find it is safer and in the interest of both parties that the receiver appointed by the court continue in possession of the plaint property and administration of the temple till disposal of the suit on its merits. So much so, I direct the learned Sub Judge, before whom the suit is pending, to dispose the suit untrammelled by any of the observations WPC.2517/09 6 made in its order or that of the judgment rendered by the learned District Judge in the appointment of the receiver, as expeditiously as possible, but after providing reasonable opportunity to both sides to lead evidence in support of their respective case, at any rate, before the closing of the Christmas vacation. Subject to the above direction, the writ petition is closed. Send a copy of the judgment to the Sub Court, Pathanamthitta forthwith. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN JUDGE prp K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C).NO.2517 OF 2009 () ----------------------------------- Dated this the 20th day of February, 2009 O R D E R After being heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 to 4, I am of the view that certain aspects are to be clarified by the parties and by the Receiver who had conducted the festival with the assistance of the Committee during last year. The learned counsel for the parties also sought time to get instructions to ascertain the facts relating to the festival and the rituals and the matters of administration during the days of the festival. I think the Receiver also will be in a position to explain the matter further. Post on 25.2.2009 (Wednesday). The Receiver is directed to appear on that day at 1.45 p.m. WPC.2517/09 8 Hand over copy to both parties. K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE prp J.B.KOSHY WPC.2517/09 9 -------------------------- Criminal.R.P. OF 1998 ---------------------------- O R D E R 4th December, 2007