IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. BHAVADASAN FRIDAY, THE 23RD DECEMBER 2011 / 2ND POUSHA 1933 RFA.No. 5 of 2007(A) (AGAINST FINAL JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 26/08/2006 IN I.A. NO:669/2004 IN O.S.NO: 4/1988 OF THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, KOLLAM) .................... APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS: 1. KOTHALAVAYAL SRI KRISHNA SWAMY TEMPLE, TEMPLE REPRESENTED BY THE DIETY OF LORD KRISHNA. 2. DR. R. DIVAKARAN, CHAKRAVARTHI, ANCHUKALLUMMOODU, KOLLAM-12. BY ADVS. SRI. H.B.SHENOY SRI. ASHOK B. SHENOY SMT. LAKSHMI B.SHENOY SRI. R. SIVADASAN RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: 1. SREEKRISHNA SWAMY KSHETHRA SAMAJAM, KOTHALAVAYAL, KAVAL, KOLLAM. 2. M. SATHEESAN, SUDHA MANDIRAM, NEAR KOTHALAVAYAL, PUNNATHALA, KOLLAM. 3. PATHMAKARAN, PATHMAVASANTHAM, MEPPILLAMKEEZHU, KAIKULANGARA, KOLLAM. 4. K. CHANDRAN, LEKSHMI NIVAS, PUNNATHALA, KOLLAM. * ADDL. R5 IMPLEADED * 5. S. SOMARAJAN, S/O. SADANANDAN, RESIDING AT THODIYIL VEEDU, PUNNATHALACHERRY, KOLLAM DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER KAMALASANAN PILLAI, S/O. CHANDRASEKHARAN PILLAI, RESIDING AT MARIYADIL VEEDU, NADUVILAKKARA, THEVALLAKKARA, KOLLAM. * ADDL. R5 IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER IN I.A. 512/2009 DATED 23/12/2011. R1 TO R3 BY ADV. SRI. P.B. SURESH KUMAR ADDL. R5 BY ADV. DR. K.P. SATHEESAN THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: SP RFA.No. 5 of 2007(A) APPENDIX APPELLANTS' ANNEXURE :- 1. ANNEXURE A1 - COPY OF NOTICE DATED 25/03/2009 ISSUED BY MR. B. DEVAN AS SECRETARY OF THE 1ST APPELLANT - TEMPLE. RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURE:- NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE. SP P.BHAVADASAN, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - R.F.A.No. 5 of 2007 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 23rd day of December, 2011 J U D G M E N T Petitioners before the court below in I.A.No.669(a) of 2004 O.S.No.4 of 1988 are the appellants. 2. The facts absolutely necessary for the disposal of this appeal are as follows:- 3. The Sree Krishna Swamy Temple which is the subject matter of the suit was founded by one Sankaran Channar. As per partition deed No.589 of 1121 ME, there was an arrangement in the family by which the temple and the property set apart to temple was given absolutely to Kunjuraman for management. It appears that said Kunjuraman by Ext.A3 made over the management to a Samithi which thereafter carried on the administration of the temple. 4. Later suit was instituted by two members of the -:2:- R.F.A.No. 5 of 2007 founder’s family seeking a declaration that the temple is a private temple and the public have no role in the matter of administration of the temple. That was contested and ultimately it was held that though the temple is a private temple, the public have right in the administration of the temple and this Court had indicated to frame a scheme in the matter associating public in the management also giving due prominence to the members of the founders family. A preliminary decree was thus passed by this Court. 5. There after I.A.No.669 of 2004 was filed for passing the final decree and it appears that the both sides submitted their draft scheme. The court below thought it fit to adopt certain aspects in each of the draft scheme and formulated a scheme, some of the provision read as follows:- (1) There are to be two members from each of nine 'kara' making up of total of 18 members. The senior most male member from the family of Kunjuraman and four members to be nominated by the members of the founders family thus -:3:- R.F.A.No. 5 of 2007 constituting 23 members to have the administrative committee for the administration of the temple. (2) The administrative committee is to elect 5 persons to the executive committee consisting of President, Vice President, Secretary, Treasurer and Joint Secretary for the day to day administration and management of the temple. (3) It is stated in the scheme that the senior most among the four members of founders family will be the patron of the administrative committee. 6. There is some incongruity in the above scheme. If the founder's family is to be given due importance in the day to day administration and management of the temple which is to be carried on by the executive committee, it has necessarily to be ensured that one of them is represented in the Executive Committee. If the Administrative Committee consisting of 23 members out of which 18 are from the nine karas, it may so happen that while electing the Executive Committee none from the founder's family may finally find a -:4:- R.F.A.No. 5 of 2007 place in the executive committee. That may be inconsistent with the direction of this Court while confirming the preliminary decree. 7. Therefore in order to ensure compliance with the judgment and preliminary decree passed by this Court and also to ensure the participation of the founder’s family, the following modified decree is passed:- 1. The administrative committee shall be consist of 23 members out of which 18 shall be elected representatives from the nine karas, each kara having the right to elect two persons. The senior most male member of the family of Kunjuraman shall be another member of the Administrative Committee. Four members nominated by the founder's family will also be the members of the administrative committee. 2. The senior most male member from the Kunjuraman’s family shall be the Patron of the administrative committee. 3. The Executive Committee consisting of 5 persons -:5:- R.F.A.No. 5 of 2007 namely the President, Vice president, Secretary, Joint Secretary and Treasurer shall be constituted for the day to day administration and management of the temple. The patron of the Administrative Committee shall be President of the Executive Committee. The Joint Secretary shall be one among the four members nominated from the founders family and who is to be elected by the governing body and other three office bearers are to be elected by the administrative committee. 4. The day to day administration and management of the temple shall be carried on by the Executive Committee under the supervision of the administrative committee. Subject to the above modification the scheme approved by the lower court is confirmed. P.BHAVADASAN, JUDGE kkj