IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN THURSDAY, THE 15TH OCTOBER 2009 / 23RD ASWINA 1931 SA.No. 43 of 2000(E) -------------------- AS.295/1996 of SUB COURT, NEDUMANGAD OS.119/1993 of PRL.MUNSIFF COURT,NEDUMANGAD .................... APPELLANT(S)/RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS: -------------- 1. ARYANAD PULIMOODU KANDAN SASTHA TEMPLE ARYANAD VILLAGE, REP BY 2ND RESPONDENT 2. NADARAJA PILLAI, COMMITTEE SECRETARY -DO- TEMPLE, RESIDING AT KRISHNALAYAM PAZHAYATHERUVU MURI, ARYANAD VILLAGE 3. K.VELAYUDHAN PILLAI, COMMITTEE PRESIDENT OF DO TEMPLE, RESIDING AT PUTHEN VEEDU PAZHAYATHERUVU MURI, ARAYANADU VILLAGE BY ADV. SRI.NAIR AJAY KRISHNAN SRI.NAGARAJ NARAYANAN RESPONDENT(S)/ADDITIONAL APPELLANTS 2 TO 7/LEGAL HEIRS OF PLAINTIFF IN THE SUIT: --------------- 1.P.SWARANAMMA, W/O.LATE KUMARAPILLAI POOVANMOOTTU VEEDU ARYANADU , ARYANADU PO 2. VALSALAKUMARI, D/O.P.SWARNAMMA -DO- 3. PREMALATHA -DO- 4. HARISUDHAN S/O.-DO- 5. K.ANILKUMAR S/O.DO 6. K.MAHESWARAN S/O. -DO- ADV. SRI.K.SATHEESH KUMAR THIS SECOND APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/10/2009, THE COURT ON 15/10/09 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P. BHAVADASAN, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - S.A. No. 43 of 2000 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 15th day of October, 2009. JUDGMENT The plaintiff, the Poojari of a temple claimed arrears of salary. The trial court found that he is entitled to the same, but rejected the suit on the ground that the Idol had not been made a party. He appealed against the decree and the appellate court found that the court below was not justified in declining to grant relief on the ground that Idol was not a party. It reversed the decree of the trial court and decreed the suit for a sum of Rs.7350/- with 6% interest from the date of suit till realisation with proportionate cost. The said decree is assailed in this appeal. 2. The following substantial questions of law have been raised in this Second Appeal for consideration: “(I) Whether the appellate court was correct in finding on the question of law that in a suit for arrears of salary admittedly due from a temple committee, the deity is liable without the deity being S.A. 43/2000. 2 made a party to the suit? (II) Whether the appellate court was correct in finding on law that the respondents can realise arrears of salary from the 1st defendant temple committee by the sale of deity's properties without impleading the deity in the party array sustainable under law? (III) Whether the appellate court was correct in holding under law that since the lower court has assigned no reason to disallow the washing and cleaning charge of Rs.50/- per month the respondent is entitled for the same without assigning any reason under law, evidence or fact, a bad precedents in this regard?” The only question that arises for consideration is whether the deity is a necessary party to the suit as found by the trial court. 3. It is not in dispute that the plaintiff was the Poojari of a temple and his salary was Rs.300/- per month and a sum of Rs.50/- as washing charges. The plaintiff had claimed arrears of salary from March, 1991 to December, 1992. The trial court found that salary was in arrears for the said period at the rate of Rs.300/-. But the claim for Rs.50/- per month as washing charges was S.A. 43/2000. 3 disallowed. The first appellate court found that there is no reason to decline the additional sum of Rs.50/- being given as washing charges and therefore the first appellate court found that a sum of Rs.350/- per month was due to the plaintiff as arrears of salary for the period already made mention of. 4. As rightly noticed by the court below, the nature of the relief is such that the claim is not against the deity, but against the Temple Committee, which appointed him as Poojari. The present suit is not one for right to the temple property, but a simple money suit for the money due from the Temple Committee, which appointed him. The first appellate court had noticed that in fact the second respondent before the Sub Court had filed a suit representing the temple against the plaintiff. The trial court had committed an error in holding that the deity is a necessary party. The decision relied on by the trial court to come to that conclusion has no application to the facts of the present case. As rightly noticed by the first appellate court, the claim was one for money S.A. 43/2000. 4 due from the Temple Committee and it has nothing to do with the deity. The result is that, this appeal is without merit and it is liable to be dismissed. I do so. However, there will be no order as to costs. P. BHAVADASAN, JUDGE sb. S.A. 43/2000. 5 P. BHAVADASAN, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - S.A. No. 43 of 2000 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - JUDGMENT 15.10.2009.