IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN THURSDAY, THE 2ND JUNE 2011 / 12TH JYAISHTA 1933 SA.No. 812 of 2000(E) ------------------------------ [AS.NO.88/1996 OF I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, KOZHIKODE, OS.NO.671/1994 OF II ADDITIONAL SUB COURT,KOZHIKODE] .................... APPELLANTS/APPELLANTS/DEFENDANTS: -------------------------------------------------------------- 1. SREE PALAKURUMBA BHAGAVATHI KSHETHRA SAMRAKSHANA SAMITHI, BY ITS PRESIDENT SRI. KANDIYIL CHATHUKUTTY, KANDIYIL HOUSE, OLAVANNA AMSOM & DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK. 2. KAYALOT MADHAVAN, GENERAL SECRETARY, OLAVANNA AMSOM & DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK. BY ADV. SMT.LEKHA SURESH. RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF: ----------------------------------------------------------- T. NARAYANAN NAMBOODIRI, S/O. VASUDEVAN NAMBOODIRI, THIRUMANGALATH ILLOM, OLAVANNA AMSOM AND DESOM. BY ADVS. SRI.T.V.GEORGE, SRI.S. DORASWAMI IYER. THIS SECOND APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. P.BHAVADASAN, J. ------------------------------------- SA No.812 of 2000 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of June 2011 Judgment The defendants in OS No.671/94, who suffered decrees at the hands of both the courts below, are the appellants. The parties and facts are hereinafter referred to as they are available before the trial court. 2. The suit related to the administration and management of Palakurumba Bhagavathy Kshethram, situated in Kozhikode taluk. The plaintiff laid the suit on the allegation that the defendants are trying to interfere with his right of administration and management of the temple. It was pointed out by him that they have no right to do so. 3. The suit was resisted by the defendants, pointing out that the temple is governed by the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act and is under the administration of HR & CE Board. Further contention is SA 812/2000 2 that the plaintiff was only a Santhi appointed by the temple samithy and he has no right or ownership over the temple. The temple in question is a public temple and the plaintiff cannot seek an injunction against the defendants. On the basis of the above contentions, they prayed for dismissal of the suit. 4. On the basis of the above pleadings, necessary issues were raised by the court below. The evidence consists of the testimony of PW1 and documents marked as Exts.A1 to A10 from the side of the plaintiff. The defendants had Dws 1 and 2 examined and Exts.B1 to B18 marked. 5.The trial court, on an appreciation of the evidence, found that in an earlier suit, evidenced by Ext.A1, the status of the plaintiff has been recognised as a hereditary trustee and if that be so, he is entitled to carry on the administration and management of the temple subject to the provisions of the HR & CE Act. SA 812/2000 3 Accordingly, the suit was decreed. 6. The defendants carried the matter in appeal as AS No.88/96 before the District Court, Kozhikode. The lower appellate court concurred with the trial court and dismissed the appeal. Hence the second appeal. 7. Notice is seen issued on the following questions of law raised in the second appeal : 1.Whether a suit praying inter-alia for injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the management of public temple is maintainable in view of Section 93 of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act ? 2.Whether in a suit praying inter alia for injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with management of a public temple the right to management is in issue ? 3.Whether identification of property is required in a suit for injunction restraining the defendants from cutting and removing kuzhikoors and putting up new structures when the defendants have disputed the correctness of the SA 812/2000 4 extent and survey numbers ? 4.Whether the courts below were justified in brushing aside the documents produced by the appellants without appreciating its contents, solely on the ground that it was of the year 1994 ? 8. The learned counsel for the appellants very vehemently contended that at the appellate stage, the plaint was amended, changing the survey number and the boundaries and in a suit for injunction, it is essential that the properties are properly identified. In the case on hand, the property had not been identified and opportunity to show that property cannot be identified has been deprived to them. The plaintiff cannot have any manner of right to claim administration and management of the temple. It is also pointed out that he is only an employee of the committee. Accordingly it is submitted that the findings of the courts below are unsustainable in law. 9. There is no merit in the above contention at all. Both the courts below have found that going by Ext.A1, SA 812/2000 5 which is the judgment in OS No.308/90, the status of the plaintiff in the suit was determined as a hereditary trustee and it is also held in the said judgment that it is a public temple. In the present suit, all that is sought for is for an injunction restraining the defendants in this case from interfering with the management and administration of the temple, which is entitled to carry on as a hereditary trustee. 10. It is significant to notice that both the courts below have confined the relief to the actual administration and management of the temple and have not interfered with the right of worship or other matters, which the public are entitled to in the temple, as per the provisions of the HR & CE Act. A hereditary trustee is entitled to administer and manage the affairs of the temple in accordance with the provisions of the relevant Act and Rules and orders issued by the authorities mentioned above. The kshethra samithy is found to be a body successor-in-interest of the defendants in the earlier suit and both the courts below have found that they are bound by the earlier decision. If, SA 812/2000 6 as a matter of fact, the defendants have a case that the hereditary trustee is mis-managing the affairs of the temple, their remedy lies elsewhere. As long as the plaintiff continues to be the hereditary trustee, he is entitled to administer the affairs of the temple in accordance with law. That is the only relief granted by the courts below. Since it has already been determined that the plaintiff is a hereditary trustee, in an earlier suit, that question is not open for re-determination in the present suit. The result is that the second appeal is devoid of any merits and it is accordingly dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. P.Bhavadasan, Judge sta SA 812/2000 7