IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN TUESDAY, THE 9TH MARCH 2010 / 18TH PHALGUNA 1931 WA.No. 898 of 2002 --------------------- (AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN O.P.NO.10463/1995 DATED 31.10.2001) APPELLANT: RESPONDENT NO.4 IN THE O.P: ---------------------------- K.V.JANAKI AMMA, W/O.A.V.RAMAN NAIR, (DIED) ALIAS RAMARU MASTER, KANNADIPARAMBA AMSOM, PULLUPPI DESOM, KANNUR TALUK AND DISTRICT. ADDL. APPELLANTS: 2. K.V.VIJAYAN, S/O.K.V.JANAKI AMMA, KADANMAR VEEDU, PARAPPURAM, KOTTANCHERRY, KANNADIPARAMBA, KANNUR DT. 3. K.V.SATHI, D/O. DO. DO. 4. K.V.OMANA, D/O. DO. DO. 5. K.V.VIJAYALAKSHMI, D/O. DO. DO. (ADDL. APPELLANTS 2 TO 5 ARE IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DT. 24.2.2010 IN IA NO.1140/2003 BY ADV. SRI.V.R.VENKATAKRISHNAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.N.K.SUBRAMANIAN RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3 IN THE O.P: ----------------------------------------------- 1. K.V.BALAN NAIR, KAMBATH VEETTIL, (DIED) KANNADIPARAMBA, KANNUR DISTRICT. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, GNERAL EDUCATION (P) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, PAPPINISSERI. WA No.898/2002 ADDL. RESPONDENTS: 5. A.V.KAMALAKSHI, W/O.LATE K.V.BALAN NAIR, KAMBATH VEETTIL, KANNADIPARAMBA, KANNUR DT. 6. GEETHA, D/O.LATE K.V.BALAN NAIR, DO. DO. 7. GANESHAN, S/O. DO. DO. 8. ANITHA, D/O. DO. DO. 9. LATHA, D/O. DO. DO. (ADDL. R5 TO R9 IMPLEADED AS THE LEGAL HEIRS OF DECEASED 1ST RESPONDENT, SUBJECT TO ALL EXCEPTIONS VIDE ORDER DT. 20.11.2006 ON IA NOS.1113/06 & 1114/06) 10. K.V.RAJAN, P.O.BOX NO.17484, SAUDI ELECTRIC IND. CO. LTD., JEDDAH - 21484, SAUDI ARABIA. (IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DT. 24.2.2010 IN IA NO.1140/2003) BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.R.BINDU FOR R2 TO R4 ADV. SRI.T.M.SUNIL FOR ADDL. R9 THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & P.N.RAVINDRAN, JJ. ------------------------------ W.A.No.898/2002 ------------------------------ Dated this, the 9th day of March, 2010 JUDGMENT Balakrishnan Nair, J. The 4th respondent in the Original Petition is the appellant. The 1st respondent herein was the petitioner. Now, both the appellant and the 1st respondent are no more. The legal heirs of them are now pursuing this appeal. But, for convenience, we will refer to the appellant and the 1st respondent, as they died only after the judgment under appeal was rendered. 2. The School in question was founded by K.V.Ramankutty Nair, father of the appellant and 1st respondent. According to the appellant, her husband Ramar Master, who was the Headmaster of the School, was appointed as the Manager of the School by her father. According to the 1st respondent, the said person was only a correspondent. The said person died in 1980. Thereafter, the appellant claimed that she succeeded to Managership and the said claim generated a dispute between the appellant and the 1st respondent. The 1st respondent got the property of the School, WA No.898/2002 - 2 - including the land and building of it under a family partition executed in 1977. The appellant was also a beneficiary of that partition, as she got some properties under it. 3. According to the appellant, she moved for change of Managership after the death of her husband and the Assistant Educational Officer (AEO) rejected that application by order dated 20.1.1981. She moved the Director of Public Instruction (DPI). The DPI by Ext.P2 order dated 16.11.1981 remanded the matter to the AEO. The AEO again considered the claims of the parties and by Ext.P3 order dated 29.11.1983, rejected the claim of the appellant and upheld the claim of the 1st respondent. The appellant appealed to the DPI. The DPI rejected that appeal by Ext.P5 communication dated 15.10.1984. The appellant challenged that order before this Court, as a non-speaking order. This Court quashed Ext.P5 and remanded the matter to the DPI for fresh consideration. Thereafter, the DPI passed Ext.P6 order dated 5.12.1989, affirming Ext.P3. The appellant submits, she challenged Ext.P6 before the Government and the Government allowed the revision by Ext.P9 order dated 19.5.1995. Impugning Ext.P9, the 1st respondent herein filed the Original Petition. WA No.898/2002 - 3 - 4. According to the 1st respondent, there is some dispute regarding the facts as to who moved the AEO for change of Manager. According to him, his father died in 1961 and thereafter, his mother was the Educational Agency and Manager. She appointed the appellant's husband as correspondent only. After the 1st respondent got the properties of the School under the family partition, he moved for change of management in his favour. According to the 1st respondent, the AEO directed him to produce materials to show that he is he owner of the School. Thereupon, the appellant challenged the same before the DPI. We think, these details and the dispute concerning them are not relevant now, in view of Ext.P3 order of the AEO, Ext.P6 order of the DPI and Ext.P9 order of the Government. The view taken by the Government in Ext.P9 is that the 1st respondent should establish his rights before the civil court, whereas in Ext.P6 the DPI took the view that it is for the appellant to move the civil court and establish her right. 5. The learned Single Judge, after considering the claims of rival parties, upheld the view of the DPI and quashed the order of the Government Ext.P9. Hence this appeal. In view of the partition deed, the appellant cannot dispute that the properties of the School, including its WA No.898/2002 - 4 - land and buildings belong to the 1st respondent. If that be so, the view taken by the learned Single Judge that the said person should be allowed to manage the School until the appellant establishes her claim before the competent civil court, is correct. We are not venturing to deal with the rival claims further, as our observations are likely to prejudice one side or the other, while the matter is considered by the civil court. But, we only say that the interim arrangement now made in the judgment under appeal is only just and proper. The same has to remain in force until the same is modified by the competent civil court by appropriate interim or final order. In the result, the Writ Appeal fails and it is dismissed. K. Balakrishnan Nair, Judge. P.N.Ravindran, Judge. nm.