IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 24TH MARCH 2008 / 4TH CHAITHRA 1930 WP(C).No. 22621 of 2007(R) -------------------------- OS.3/1980 of SUB COURT, KASARAGOD .................... PETITIONERS: ------------ 1. A.K.RANJINI, D/O BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, RESIDING AT THALIYILPARA HOUSE, P.O.KUTTIKOLE, CHENGALA, KASARAGOD- 671 541. 2. A.K.SHAMPRASAD, S/O DO. IN DO.DO. 3. A.K.JYOTHIKUMAR, S/O.DO. IN DO. DO. 4. A.K.SHALINI, D/O.DO. IN DO. DO. 5. A.K.SHRIJITH, S/O.DO. IN DO. DO. BY ADV. SRI.K.JAYAKUMAR SRI.P.B.KRISHNAN RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. KODOTH KARTHIYANI AMMA, D/O.LATE KANNAN NAIR, RESIDING AT PONNANKAYA, KUTTIKOLE VILLAGE, KASARAGOD TALUK. 2. KODOTH OMANA AMMA, D/O.DO. RESIDING AT MUDOOR HOUSE, SULLIA TALUK. 3. KODOTH SAROJINI, D/O.DO. RESIDING AT KANDANTHINGAL, KUTTIKOLE, KUTTIKOLE VILLAGE, KASARAGOD TALUK. 4. KODOTH DAKSHAYANI AMMA, D/O.DO., RESIDING AT MAVUNGAL, AJANOOR VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK. 5. KODOTH THAMBAN NAIR, D/O.DO. RESIDING AT PRASRUMA, MANADKA, BANDADKA VILLAGE, KASARAGOD TALUK. 6. KODOTH BAGEERATHI AMMA, D/O.DO., RESIDING AT KORAKODE HOUSE, KASARAGOD TALUK. 7. M.MURLIDHARAN NAMBIAR, S/O.CHANDRAVATHI, RESIDING AT KODOTH HOUSE, PALLIKKERE, P.O. NILESHWAR, HOSDURG TALUK. 8. K.BHASKARAN NAMBIAR, S/O.DO.RESIDING IN DO. DO. 9. KODOTH VENUGOPAL NAMBIAR, S/O.DO.RESIDING AT MATHIL P.O., VIA.PAYYANNUR, KANNUR DISTRICT. 10. JAYARAJ NAMBIAR, S/O.DO., MANAGER, L.I.C. OF INDIA, KANHANGAD, HOSDURG TALUK. 11. K.BHARATHI, D/O.DO., RESIDING AT KOVILAGAM, P.O. NILAMBOOR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 12. A.K.VIJAYAGOPALA, S/O.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, RESIDING AT SHARADA VILAS, PALAYAD, P.O.MELOOR, KANNUR DISTRICT. 13. SHAILAJA, D/O.K.GANGA AMMA, RESIDING AT BALAL HOUSE, P.O.BALAL, HOSDURG TALUK. 14. K.PRAKASH MANIKANDAN, S/O.DO., D.M.O. OFFICE, CIVIL OFFICE, KANNUR. 15. K.GIRISHAN, S/O.DO., SRIKAVYAM, AJANOOR, P.O.BELLIKOTH, KANHANGAD, HOSDURG TALUK. 16. KODOTH SHANTHA AMMA, D/O.V.K.MADHAVAN NAIR, SHANKARAMPADY, KARIVEDAKAM VILLAGE, P.O.SHANKARAMPADY. 17. LAKSHMI RAJMOHAN, RESIDING AT HARIKRIPA, KADAPURAM KAVUGOLI, P.O.KUDLU, KASARAGOD TALUK. 18. MADHU MOHAN RAJ, S/O.K.MOHANAN NAIR, RESIDING IN DO. DO. 19. MANJULA, D/O.K.MOHANAN NAIR, RESIDING IN DO. DO. 20. RANJITH RAJ, D/O.K.MOHANAN NAIR, RESIDING IN DO. DO. BY ADV. SRI.T.SETHUMADHAVAN SRI.T.SETHUMADHAVAN SRI.PUSHPARAJAN KODOTH SRI.K.JAYESH MOHANKUMAR SRI.T.SETHUMADHAVAN SRI.PUSHPARAJAN KODOTH SRI.K.JAYESH MOHANKUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO 22621/07 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1. DT. 12.1.06, COPY OF THE APPLICATION, IA NO.55 OF 2006 IN OS 3/1980, SUB COURT, KASARAGOD EXT.P2. DT. 12.1.06, COPY OF THE APPLICATION, IA NO.56 OF 2006 IN OS 3/1980, SUB COURT, KASARAGOD EXT.P3. DT. 12.2.07, COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT IN IA NO.56 OF 2006 IN OS 3/1980, SUB COURT, KASARAGOD EXT.P4. DT. 12.2.07, COPY OF THE APPLICATION, IA NO.130 OF 2007 IN OS 3/1980, SUB COURT, KASARAGOD EXT.P5. DT. 12.2.07, COPY OF THE APPLICATION, IA NO.131 OF 2007 IN OS 3/1980, SUB COURT, KASARAGOD EXT.P6. DT. 26.2.07, COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT IN IA NO.130 OF 2007 IN OS 3/1980, SUB COURT, KASARAGOD EXT.P7. DT. 26.2.07, COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT IN IA NO.131 OF 2007 IN OS 3/1980, SUB COURT, KASARAGOD EXT.P8. DT. 30.6.07, COPY OF THE COMMON ORDER IN IA NOS.56/06, 130/07 & 131/07 IN OS 3/1980, SUB COURT, KASARAGOD RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: EXT.R1(a). COPY OF THE PARTITION DEED DT. 30.9.72 /TRUE COPY/ PA TO JUDGE. M.N.KRISHNAN, J. -------------------------- W.P.(C). NO. 22621 OF 2007 --------------------- Dated this the 24th day of March, 2008 JUDGMENT This writ petition is preferred against Ext.P8 order whereby the learned Subordinate Judge, Kasaragod, has directed the suit properties to be delivered to the petitioners in IA 56/06 and the petitioners are permitted to withdraw the court deposit made by them. 2. Heard the counsel for both sides. Learned counsel for the writ petitioners has brought to my attention the observations made by the trial court as well as this court while disposing of the appeal. The 1st defendant was the contesting defendant. With him on record, the court has pronounced the judgment and subsequently in the appeal with his legal representatives. The property is outstanding in possession of the receiver appointed by the court and I am informed that it is having an extent of 22 acres. The court by the decree has removed the 1st defendant from management of the property. As per the recitals in the document, it is the 7th plaintiff, who is entitled to succeed. Even otherwise the 1st defendant is dead WPC NO 22621/07 2 and if the recitals in the document is to be followed, the 7th plaintiff is entitled to manage the property. But it has been submitted before the court that he does not want a unilateral management of the property and the plaintiffs and other non-contesting defendant are agreeable for the framing of a scheme for proper management of the properties and administration of the Temple. This court while disposing of the first appeal held that so far as removal of the receiver is concerned, the parties can move the lower court and the lower court can decide whether the receiver has to be discharged or not. If it is convinced that the receiver can be discharged, it shall make alternative arrangement till the framing of a scheme and its finalisation. Now, the court has directed the property to be handed over to the petitioners in IA 56/06 and also has permitted them to withdraw the court deposit made by them. 3. I am afraid that such a blanket permission without any restriction cannot be given to the petitioners for the reason that everything depends upon the ultimate finalisation of the scheme regarding the management and possession of the property belonging to the Temple. It is true that the receiver need not continue in possession when the parties are entitled for the same and when they WPC NO 22621/07 3 are the persons responsible and capable of manging the properties. The writ petitioners are only the legal representative of the 1st defendant and really seems to be not the members of the Thavazhi on account of the factum that they are claiming property through their father. Learned counsel would contend that by the abolition of the joint family system his clients are entitled to right. That is a matter that has to be looked into in the light of the two judgments passed by this court. If it has become a finality then it goes without saying anything, otherwise that may be a point that has to be considered. But so far as the management of the property is concerned, I modify the order of the Subordinate Judge, Kasaragod, as follows: 4. Petitioners in IA 56/06 be handed over the interim custody of the properties till a final scheme is passed by the court. Petitioners therein are liable to account for the income and expenditure, which is derived from the property and they can spend the amount only with the permission of the court. If a situation arises that the amount is required for the purpose of doing something in connection with the Temple, they are perfectly at liberty to move the court and obtain sanction for the same. The corpus of the property namely the amount derived from the property need not be distributed WPC NO 22621/07 4 to any person now till a final decision is arrived at by the court below. I further direct that the scheme may be framed as expeditiously as possible in the light of the direction in the previous writ petition 15828/07. The receiver, subject to his right and liabilities, be discharged as provided under Order XL of the CPC. The receiver shall handover possession of the properties within a period of 15 days from today. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE vps WPC NO 22621/07 5 WPC NO 22621/07 6