IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN TUESDAY, THE 20TH OCTOBER 2009 / 28TH ASWINA 1931 CRP.No. 39 of 2002 -------------------- OS.281/1983 of ADDL.SUB COURT,KOLLAM .................... REVN. PETITIONER/1ST PETITIONER: ---------------------------------------- DAMODARAN UNNITHAN, S/O.SANKARA PILLAI, MALAYANKANDATHIL THEKKETHIL, PALAMEL VILLAGE ELAVCODU, NEERANADU P.O., MAVELIKKARA. BY ADV. MR.K.P.SREEKUMAR RESPONDENTS/2ND PETITIONER & RESPONDENT: ----------------------------------------------------- 1. OCHIRA PARABRAHMA KSHETRA BHARANA SAMITHI, OCHIRA P.O. 2. K.S.PARAMESWARAN PILLAI, PRESIDENT DO.DO. NAYANAKATTA KARAZHMA MURI, ELIKULATHU VEEDU, OCHIRA P.O. 3. K.BHARGAVAN, SECRETARY KSHETHRA BHARANA SAMITHY, MUTTATHU VEEDU, PRAYAR THEKKU MURI, PERINAD VILLAGE. ALINPEEDIKA P.O. 4. A.SANKU, TREASURER, KSHETHRA BHARANA SAMITHY, OCHIRA, KATTIL VEEDU, AZHIKKAL THURAYIL, PERINAD VILLAGE, AZHIKKAL P.O. 5. S.PARAMESWARAN UNNITHAN, METTAMBARATHU VEEDU, KANIMEL MURI, VALLIKUNNAM P.O. 6. BHARGAVAN PILLAI, S/O.ACHUTHAN PILLAI, VELLIYIL THEKKETHIL, PUTHEN PALLY P.O. ADV. MR.C.RAJENDRAN FOR R5 MR.V.G.ARUN FOR R3 THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ----------------------------------- C.R.P.No.39 of 2002 - D --------------------------------- Dated this the 20th day of October, 2009 O R D E R Two suits, O.S.Nos.281 of 1983 & 97 of 1984 were jointly tried by the Additional Sub Court, Kollam and a preliminary decree was passed in the former suit, in which among other reliefs removal of the defendants 1 to 4 from the management of a temple and recovery of property, accounting etc., was sought for. In the other suit, plaintiffs who claimed to be members of the family recognised as 'sthanees' of the temple, sought for reliefs as to their entitlement to have the share over the offerings made in the temple, with some other reliefs. The dispute in both the suits related to, and connected with, Oachira Parabrahma Temple. After passing of the preliminary decree common plaintiffs in both suits moved an application for appointment of a commission and also direction/order to the receiver appointed over the temple for production of the accounts. The case of the plaintiffs in a nutshell for the appointment of the commissioner was that the persons in management of the temple without authority have placed hundies for receiving offerings at different C.R.P..No.39 of 2002 - D 2 spots in and around the temple. As per the custom and also as of right plaintiffs as sthanees who are entitled to have 1/2 of such offerings are deprived of their offerings made by the devotees in placing of hundies in several places was their case. They wanted the commissioner to locate such offerings made at different spots in the temple. The court below dismissed the petition for the reason that a challenge against the dismissal of a similar petition was pending before this Court in appeal. So far as the application moved by the plaintiffs for directing the receiver to file accounts, after hearing both sides, it was allowed. The grievance canvassed by the plaintiff in the revision is against disallowing of the commission application. 2. At the time of hearing, it was brought to my notice that the appeal preferred against the final decree passed in the suit had already been disposed of by this Court with specific directions vide judgment dated 28.10.2005. The directions include appointment of a commissioner with respect to determination of the kanikka (offerings) in the temple. In paragraph 9 of the judgment passed by this Court in A.S.No.22 of 1997 this Court has held as follows: C.R.P..No.39 of 2002 - D 3 “9. I have gone through the evidence available on record. It clearly shows that apart from the offerings placed into the hundi, there are also various other offerings made by way of gold, silver and money. They are placed at the 'Althara'. These are all collected by the administrators, who are from both the plaintiffs' side as well as the defendants' side, as contained in Ext.A2 compromise decree. Therefore, all these offerings are to be accounted and, according to me, 'kanikka' mentioned in Ext.A2 decree, which became final, includes not only the offerings made into the hundi, but also those offerings, by way of cash and kind, placed at the 'Althara' or made otherwise at the eastern 'Althara'. Accordingly, it is necessary that the total offerings, that is made at the eastern 'Althara', during a particular period, have to be accounted. At one point, the counsel appearing for the appellant brought to my notice that, as per the materials available in I.A.No.2171/91 filed on 21.11.1991 in O.S.No.281/1983, the amount claimed by the plaintiffs were more than rupees 20 lakhs. However, as per the receivers accounts, from first Vrischikam 1161 to second karkkidakam 1163 M.E., the total income came to Rs.13,53,000/-, the half share being Rs.6,76,500/-. When compared to this amount, as reflected though the accounts of the receiver, the final decree passed by the court below is not true to the actual offerings available at the eastern 'Althara'.” C.R.P..No.39 of 2002 - D 4 3. So much so, no further directions with respect to the appointment of the commissioner sought for in the application which was declined by the court below and challenged in the revision are warranted. Revision is disposed of as above. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE. bkn/-