IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.P.BALACHANDRAN TUESDAY, THE 27TH JANUARY 2009 / 7TH MAGHA 1930 WP(C).No.35085 of 2008 (B) ---------------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN EP.237/2004 IN OS.136/1996 of II ADDL. DISTRICT COURT, TRIVANDRUM .................... PETITIONER: --------------- K.VISWANATHAN, 'SREENITHY', T.C.6/2562, PRASANTH NAGAR, MEDICAL COLLEGE.P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.M.R.ANANDAKUTTAN SMT.M.HEMALATHA SMT.SHIRMILA. C.S. SRI.MAHESH ANANDAKUTTAN RESPONDENTS: ------------------ 1. VIDYADHARAN, S/O CHELLAPPAN, RETD., A.E., P.W.D, RESIDING AT VIDHYA, VANCHIYOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. PETTAH PUTHEN KOIL BHAGAVATHY TEMPLE, PETTAH, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, C.P.SETHUNATH. 3. G.GOPAKUMAR, PADMALAYAM, VANCHIYOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. C.P.SETHUNATH, C.P.NIVAS, PETTAH, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. K.HARIDAS, T.C.49/963, KALIPANKULAM, MANACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.M.C.MADHAVAN FOR R1 SRI.P.RAMESAN (KANIAPURAM) FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/01/2009, ALONG WITH CRP NO.661 OF 2008 & CRP NO. 662 OF 2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No.35085 of 2008 (B) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXTS:- EXT.P1:- TRUE COPY OF THE DECREE DT.09/02/1943. EXT.P2:- TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DT.29/01/1975. EXT.P3:- TRUE COPY OF THE LIST. EXT.P4:- TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DT.03/09/1975. EXT.P5:- TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DT.18/11/03. EXT.P6:- TRUE COPY OF THE DECREE DT.18/03/03. EXT.P7:- TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DT.25/01/06. EXT.P8:- TRUE COPY OF THE EXECUTION PETITION NO.237/04. EXT.P9:- TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.C.8774/07 DT.02/07/07. EXT.P10:- TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN FAO.302/07 DT.30/10/07. EXT.P11:- TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DT.12/08/08. RESPONDENTS' EXTS:- ANNEXURE-R1 N:- STATEMENT SHOWING THE LIST OF ELIGIBLE MEMBERS TO BE IN THE COMMITTEE WITH SENIOR ANANTHARAVAN AND SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS. ANNEXURE R1 O:- STATEMENT SHOWING THE LIST OF ELIGIBLE MEMBERS TO BE IN THE COMMITTEE WITH THE NEXT SENIOR MEMBER. ANNEXURE R1 P:- TRUE COPY OF ORDER DT.05/09/08 IN W.P.C. NO.27261/08. ANNEXURE R1 Q:- TRUE COPY OF ORDER DT.12/12/08 IN CRP.661/08. .................... K.P.BALACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------------------------ W. P. C. No.35085 of 2008, C.R.P Nos.661 & 662 of 2008 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 27th day of January, 2009 COMMON JUDGMENT Pursuant to the common interim order passed by this Court in W.P.C.35085/08, C.R.P.661/08 and C.R.P.662/08 on 08/01/09 both sides have filed statements. As per the statements filed by both sides, there are certain disputes in relation to the question as to who will be the Elamasthan. However, dispute in relation to the question as to who is the karanavan exists only in relation to Cheriyakotta, Pinarummoodu and Chittattuvilakom families. 2. In relation to Pandarathoppu family it is admitted that B.Vamadevan is the karanavan. In relation to Mekke Pandarathoppu and Kizhakke Pandarathoppu, it is admitted that the karanavans are respectively Sukumaran and W. P. C. No.35085 of 2008 and con. cases -2- K.Sidhardhan. In Kaliyambi Velayudhan's branch, it is admitted that the present karanavan is G.Raveendran and in Varuvilakom branch Dr.P.Raghuthilakam is admitted to be the present karanavan. In Kuzhivilakom and Valiakottah sakha tarwads K.N.Ramachandran also known as N.Ramachandran and C.R.Ramesan are respectively admitted to be the karanavans. In relation to Cheriyakotta branch tarwad, according to the petitioner in the Writ Petition, he himself is the person entitled to act as karanavan and be in the committee for the reason that S.Chakrapani who is the real karanavan is incapacitated; whereas according to the first respondent in the Writ Petition, S.Chakrapani is not one incapacitated and he is entitled to be the karanavan. Similarly, according to the petitioner in the Writ Petition, Sukumaran is the karanavan of Pinarummoodu sakha tarwad but W. P. C. No.35085 of 2008 and con. cases -3- he has authorised one Haridasan to act as karanavan as he is physically incapacitated. As per clause-2 of Ext.P1 scheme if the karanavan is incapacitated so as to represent the tarwad in the committee the next seniormost in that sakha tarwad is entitled to become a member in the committee and the karanavan cannot authorise someone else other than the next seniormost male member to participate as a member in the committee. It is not in dispute that Rathnakaran is the next seniormost male member in Pinarummoodu sakha tarwad. Hence, Rathnakaran shall be in the committee representing Pinarummoodu sakha tarwad. As regards the Chittattuvilakom branch tarwad there is dispute as to whether K. Lakshmanan or G.Gopakumar is the karanavan. According to counsel for the petitioner it has been observed in O.S.2150/99 on the file of the Munsiff's Court, Thiruvananthapuram that W. P. C. No.35085 of 2008 and con. cases -4- Lakshmanan has miserably failed to establish that he is a member of Chittattuvilakom branch tarwad and that he is competent to represent the tarwad in the committee in the place of the second defendant therein who is G.Gopakumar. 3. Counsel for the first respondent submits that the said decision is assailed in A.S.66/04 pending before the Sub Court, Thiruvananthapuram. It goes without saying that till the judgment in O.S.2150/99 is reversed in A.S.66/04, G.Gopakumar shall be entitled to function as a karanavan and being a member in the committee as representing Chittattuvilakom sub tarwad. Though S.Chakrapani is submitted to be the karanavan of Chieriyakotta sakha tarwad it is contended by the counsel for the petitioner that he is totally incapacitated and is incapable of functioning as karanavan and to represent as W. P. C. No.35085 of 2008 and con. cases -5- karanavan in the committee. The submission is disputed by the counsel for the first respondent according to whom S.Chakrapani is not one who is disabled or incapacitated. It is not in dispute between the parties that in case S.Chakrapani is totally incapacitated as is submitted, the petitioner K.Viswanathan will be the karanavan and that there is no dispute on that aspect. Thus, in relation to determining the question as to who will be the karanavan, there is dispute only in relation to one out of the ten sakha tarwads and that is in relation to Cheriyakotta sakha tarwad. For deciding that I direct the District Judge, Thiruvananthapuram to consider the question as to whether S.Chakrapani, the karanavan of Cheriyakotta tarwad is competent to represent the tarwad in the committee which is to manage the Petta Puthenkovil Bhagavathi temple and its assets on behalf of Cheriyakotta branch W. P. C. No.35085 of 2008 and con. cases -6- tarwad or whether he is totally incapacitated to function as karanavan and represent the branch tarwad in the committee. He shall cause production of S.Chakrapani before his court by any of the parties interested and if he is not brought to court or if brought to court, the District Judge is satisfied that he is totally incapacitated to function as karanavan and to represent the Cheriyakotta branch tarwad in the committee for the management of the temple, Sri.K.Viswanathan/the petitioner in the Writ Petition shall be the competent member to represent Cheriyakotta branch tarwad as karanavan in the committee for the management of the temple. Thus, on the District Judge deciding that limited dispute it is up to the karanavans of each tarwad to have a say as to who is the next immediate junior in his branch tarwad to represent the branch tarwad in the committee for the W. P. C. No.35085 of 2008 and con. cases -7- management of the temple as the next Elamasthan. If at all disputes are raised that the persons suggested by the karanavan is not the seniormost member next to the karanavan that dispute also shall be decided by the District Judge with relevance to their age as there is no case for either of the parties that any person in any of the branch tarwads are incompetent or totally disabled. It is made clear that as per Ext.P1 scheme if any male member of the tarwad being the eldest next to Karanavan is not willing to be a member of the committee then the next seniormost can be allowed to be the member in the committee representing the concerned sub tarwad. On the District Judge taking a decision as regards Karanavan of Cheriyakotta branch tarwad and as to who are the seniormost members next to the karanavans to represent the concerned branch tarwad as Elamasthans in W. P. C. No.35085 of 2008 and con. cases -8- the committee for the administration of the temple, the dispute regarding constitution of the committee shall stand resolved and the said committee shall thereafter function as per Ext.P1 scheme framed in O.S.46/1116 M.E on the file of the District Court, Thiruvananthapuram. The Special Commissioner Sri.M.S.Mohanachandran who is a retired District Judge appointed by this Court as per judgment in FAO.302/07 dt.30/10/2007 shall continue in office on the very same terms and conditions of appointment to oversee the smooth functioning of administration of the temple till the above disputes are set at rest by an adjudication made by the District Judge and a committee as envisaged under Ext.P1 scheme is constituted. 4. It is submitted that the festival in the temple is to take place in February, 2009 and doubt is expressed by both sides that the dispute may not be thrashed out and settled W. P. C. No.35085 of 2008 and con. cases -9- obtaining appropriate orders as directed above from the District Court before festival commences. Hence, I order that the festival in the temple shall be conducted as in the previous year by the Special Commissioner Sri.M.S.Mohanachandran, retired District Judge with the co-operation of the admitted karanavans of all the tarwads except of Cheriyakotta branch tarwad in relation to which if S.Chakrapani co-operates he shall be treated as karanavan and if S.Chakrapani does not appear before the Commissioner, the petitioner K.Viswanathan can be accepted as karanavan for the purpose of celebration of the present festival in 2009. 5. This Writ Petition as also both the C.R.Ps stand disposed of in view of the above order as counsel for both sides submit that there is no other dispute that remains to be adjudged by this Court other than what is W. P. C. No.35085 of 2008 and con. cases -10- deferred for decision by the District Judge, Thiruvananthapuram as per the directions given above. The District Judge shall dispose of the above matter within a maximum period of three months excluding the period of midsummer vacation. On such determination of all matters so referred to the District Judge, a fresh election of selecting President and Treasurer will be conducted if the majority of the committee members are of the view that the office bearers elected before constitution of the full committee including also the Elamasthans are not to continue for the full term. If such a election is decided to be conducted that also shall be conducted under the supervision of the Special Commissioner and only thereafter, need the Special Commissioner be discharged. 6. Regarding constitution of a committee with Karanavan only they are to elect W. P. C. No.35085 of 2008 and con. cases -11- President, Secretary and Treasurer to operate account in the name of the Devaswom to meet expenses of festival and payment of all dues towards salary and allowances to the staff and employees of the temple. The committee shall conduct the festival and the Special Commissioner shall oversee in compliance with the directions in Ext.P10 judgment. K.P.BALACHANDRAN, JUDGE kns/- W. P. C. No.35085 of 2008 and con. cases -12- K.P.BALACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------------------------ W. P. C. No.35085 of 2008, C.R.P Nos.661 & 662 of 2008 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 8th day of January, 2009 COMMON INTERIM ORDER Arguments of counsel on both sides were heard in Writ Petition No.35085 of 2008, C.R.P. No.661 and C.R.P. No.662 of 2008. After advancing arguments at length, the position has boiled down to the following:- Ext.P1 scheme (produced in the Writ Petition) framed in O.S.46/1116 M.E. to the extent it has been modified by Ext.P4 order dt.03/09/1975 on I.A.423-(a)/1975 in O.S. 46/1116 (produced in the Writ Petition as Ext.P4) shall be conclusive as regards the scheme and be binding on all parties. Despite common judgment dt.18/11/03 in O.S.136/96 and O.S.1401/95 (produced as Ext.P5 in the Writ Petition) which was sought to be executed by W. P. C. No.35085 of 2008 and con. cases -13- the first respondent in the Writ Petition, it is agreed that there is nothing in Ext.P5 judgment so as to be put in execution and that the direction in the said judgment will stand satisfied if parties abide by Exts.P1 and P4 produced in the Writ Petition till the scheme is modified with the permission of the District Court. 2. It is also agreed that as per Ext.P1 scheme, additions and modifications of the conditions in the scheme can be effected only in the event of not less than ten members of the committee being convinced that for the betterment of the administration of the temple additional conditions have to be incorporated to the scheme and that they can so do it only with the permission of the District Court obtained in that regard, submitting the additions and modification to be effected, for approval and that all the Karanavans of the W. P. C. No.35085 of 2008 and con. cases -14- nine tarwads which own the temple as also the Karanavan of the tarwad which was originally represented by the Karanavan Kaliyambi Velayudhan in whose place Sri.N.Bhaskaran was allowed vide Ext.P4 order to be the 19th member will submit statements before this Court reporting as to who is the present Karanavan of the said ten tarwads and as to who is the next junior member in age who can be represented in the committee as per the scheme so that a duly constituted committee as per Ext.P1 scheme can be formed as envisaged by Exts.P2 and P4 orders produced in the Writ Petition and that thereafter, the committee so constituted can be allowed to administer the temple strictly in accordance with Ext.P1 scheme and the said committee can be allowed to take a decision as to whether any other conditions are to be incorporated to Ext.P1 scheme and thereafter to get those conditions W. P. C. No.35085 of 2008 and con. cases -15- also incorporated to the scheme after getting approval of the District Court moving appropriate petition in O.S.46/1116 M.E. 3. Both sides submit that they will file statement in one week showing the names of the Karanavans and the next junior member of each tarwad including the tarwad represented by Kaliyambi Velayudhan in whose place N.Bhaskaran was incorporated in the committee vide Ext.P4 order. It is made clear that the Karanavan and the next junior member of each tarwad is to be made mention of by Karanavan of that particular tarwad and the Karanavan or members of the other tarwads shall have no right to enter into a dispute on that aspect. Report with the statements on 19/01/09. K.P.BALACHANDRAN, JUDGE kns/-