IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 3RD SEPTEMBER 2010 / 12TH BHADRA 1932 WP(C).NO. 26453 OF 2010(O) ------------------------------------------- I.A. NO.2119 OF 2010 IN OS.114/2010 OF PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF'S COURT, KOLLAM PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- R.KRISHNAN KUTTY, PRESIDENT, KURAVAR MAHASABHA NO.149, ELAMPALLOOR VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT, RESIDING AT ERATTAVILA VADAKKETHIL, PERUMPUZHA P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.B.MOHANLAL RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. NARAYANAN VALSALA, LAL BHAVAN, (FROM CHAKKALATHUNDU), PERUMPUZHA CHERRY, ELAMPALLOOR VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 2. NISHAMOL, LAL BHAVAN, (FROM CHAKKALATHUNDU), PERUMPUZHA CHERRY, ELAMPALLOOR VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 3. NITHYAMOL, LAL BHAVAN, (FROM CHAKKALATHUNDU), PERUMPUZHA CHERRY, ELAMPALLOOR VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 4. NIRAN LAL, LAL BHAVAN, (FROM CHAKKALATHUNDU), PERUMPUZHA CHERRY, ELAMPALLOOR VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.C.RAJENDRAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX --------------- PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: ---------------------------------- EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S. NO.114 OF 2010 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF'S COURT, KOLLAM. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE I.A. NO.888 OF 2010 IN O.S. . NO.114 OF 2010 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF COURT, KOLLAM. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY RESPONDENTS 1 TO 4 AGAINST EXT.P2 APPLICATION. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS IN O.S. NO.114 OF 2010 BEFORE THE MUNSIFF COURT, KOLLAM. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COY OF THE INTERIM ORDER IN O.S. NO.114 OF 2010 DATED 23.3.2010 OF THE PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF COURT, KOLLAM. EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE I.A. NO.2119 OF 2010 FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS BEFORE THE PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF'S COURT, KOLLAM. EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE PETITIONER AGAINST EXT.P6, APPLICATION. EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 19.7.2010 IN I.A. NO.2119 OF 2010 IN O.S. NO.114 OF 2010 OF THE PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF COURT, KOLLAM. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: ----------------------------------- NIL TRUE COPY THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. ==================================== W.P(C) NO.26453 of 2010 ==================================== Dated this the 03rd day of September, 2010 J U D G M E N T ExhibitP8, order is under challenge in this Writ Petition at the instance of petitioner-plaintiff in the suit. Petitioner filed O.S. No.114 of 2010 in the court of learned Principal Munsiff, Kollam for a decree for prohibitory injunction against respondents trespassing into the suit property in R.S. No.301/22 where admittedly a temple is situated. Petitioner also wanted relief of injunction against respondents causing damage of temple or interfering with its administration. Petitioner claimed to be the President of Kuravar Mahasabha (for short, “the Sabha”) and stated that suit property and temple belonged to one Ayyappan Narayanan, the late husband of respondent No.1 as per document No.5673 of 1997 and on the death of said Ayyappan Narayanan the said property devolved on respondent No.1. But on account of her inability to manage the affairs of the temple she requested the Sabha to take over the temple and property on lease and accordingly a registered lease deed was executed on 16.03.2009 as per which the suit property and temple are in the possession of the Sabha and it is being managed by that Sabha through petitioner. There W.P(C) No.26453 of 2010 -: 2 :- was Ext.P2, application for order of temporary injunction against respondents who filed Ext.P3, objection to that application and Ext.P4, written statement in the suit. Learned Munsiff while considering Ext.P2, application passed Ext.P5, order whereby as an interim arrangement petitioner was permitted to carry on administration of the suit property and temple subject to the conditions stated therein including payment of premium to the respondents at the rate of Rs.150/- per month. A few months later respondent Nos.1 to 4 filed Ext.P6, application alleging that petitioner has not complied with Ext.P5, order and to permit respondent Nos. 1 to 4 to administer and manage the temple. Learned Munsiff passed Ext.P8, order on that application allowing respondents to run the temple. That order is under challenge at the instance of petitioner. Learned counsel for petitioner contends that learned Munsiff has proceeded on the basis that Ext.P6, application was not objected by the petitioner. But petitioner had filed Ext.P7, objection to that application which was not taken into account. It is contended by learned counsel that to comply with the direction in Ext.P5, order petitioner wanted respondent No.1 to give details of her bank account so that premium could be deposited in that account but she did not W.P(C) No.26453 of 2010 -: 3 :- give the details. Thereon amount due for three months (Rs.450) was sent to respondent No.1 by money order which she refused to accept. It is pointed out by learned counsel that money order coupon was also produced along with Ext.P7, objection in the trial court but not taken into account by learned Munsiff. Learned counsel therefore requested that Ext.P8, order may be set aside and petitioner may be permitted to perform in accordance with Ext.P5, order. In response it is contended by learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 4 that there was gross violation of conditions prescribed in Ext.P5, order and thereon respondents were constrained to file Ext.P6, application. It is also contended that when Ext.P6, application was heard no objection was on record as seen from Ext.P7 which does not bear a date. Hence learned Munsiff cannot be faulted with for observing that Ext.P6, application was not opposed by the petitioner. 2. I have perused Ext.P7, but it does not bear any date. Even as per the version of respondents Ext.P7, objection was filed at least on the date of Ext.P8, order passed by the learned Munsiff. It is seen from Ext.P7 that the money order coupon to evidence that respondent No.1 had refused to receive the premium payable for three months was produced along with W.P(C) No.26453 of 2010 -: 4 :- Ext.P7, objection. I do not forget that respondents have a case that the money order was sent only after Ext.P7, objection was preferred. But on hearing counsel on both sides it appears to me that grievance of respondents is that premium was not paid per month as directed in Ext.P5, order and according to them there was also no poojas conducted in the temple at the instance of petitioner. This of course is disputed by petitioner. While this Writ Petition was admitted I had directed that operation of Ext.P8, order will stand in abeyance. It is not disputed that at least from the date of the said order petitioner is continuing with the administration and management of the temple. Having regard to these aspects I am persuaded to think that petitioner has to be given an opportunity to comply with Ext.P5, order. But he has to comply with the conditions stated therein, strictly and any violation would enable respondent Nos. 1 to 4 to move fresh application in the trial court. Resultantly, this Writ Petition is allowed in the following lines: (i) Exhibit .P8, order is set aside and Exhibit P6, application will stand dismissed. (ii) Petitioner is directed to deposit in the trial court for payment to respondent No.1 all arrears of W.P(C) No.26453 of 2010 -: 5 :- premium due till 23.09.2010 on or before 30.09.2010. (iii) Petitioner shall continue to pay to respondent No.1/deposit in the trial court for such payment premium payable as per Ext.P5, order within five (5) days from the date on which the amount falls due (i.e., on the 23rd of each month). (iv) It will be open to respondent Nos.1 to 4 to request learned Munsiff to periodically enhance the premium payable as per Ext.P5, order and if any such request is made learned Munsiff after hearing counsel on both sides shall pass appropriate orders in that regard. It is made clear that non-compliance of any the conditions stated in Ext.P5, order would enable respondent Nos.1 to 4 to file fresh application in the trial court seeking permission to administer the suit property and conduct poojas in the temple subject to appropriate terms and conditions the learned Munsiff may impose. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv