IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 20TH MAGHA 1932 WP(C).No. 7063 of 2010(G) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- VIJAYAKUMAR @ JAYACHANDRAN, S/O.BHARGAVI THAMBAI, PANAMUGHATHU MALIEKKAL, RESIDING, NEAR RAILWAY STATION, WADAKKANCHERRY, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.P.KESAVAN NAIR RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. THE COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD, THRISSUR. 2. M. DIVAKARAN KARTHA, S/O.BHARATHAN THAMBAI, THANKAM NIVAS, KANJIRASSERY, VARAVOOR VILLAGE, WADAKKANCHERRY, THRISSUR. 3. BHARGAVI THAMBAI, PANAMUGHATHU MALIEKKAL, NEAR WADAKKANCHERRY RAILWAY STATION, WADAKKANCHERY, THRISSUR. 4. VIJAYAKUMARI @ JAYASREE THAMBAI, D/O.BHARGAVI THAMBAI DO. DO. 5. JAYAPRAKASH, D/O.BHARGAVI THAMBAI, DO. DO. 6. KOMALAVALLY THAMBAI, D/O.BHARGAVI THAMBAI DO. DO. 7. SAJEEV KARTHA, S/O.KOMALAVALLY THAMBAI, DO. DO. WP(C).No. 7063 of 2010(G) 8. MANOJ KARTHA, S/O.KOMALAVALLY THAMBAI, DO. DO. *9. AMMU THAMBAI, D/O.KOCHUKUTTY THAMBAI, PANAMUKHATHU MALIEKKAL, HANUMAN MUKKU, P.O. KUNDUKAD, THRISSUR DISTRICT. *(DELETED) 10. SOBHANA THAMBAI, D/O.AMMINI THAMBAI, DO. DO. 11. NALINI THAMBAI, D/O.AMMINI THAMBAI, DO. DO. * THE 9TH RESPONDENT IS DELETED FROM THE PARTY ARRAY AS PER ORDER DATED 09/02/2011 IN I.A.NO. 17686/2010. R1 BY ADV. SRI.K.GOPALAKRISHNA KURUP, SC, C.D. BOARD, SRI.N.RAGHURAJ,SC,C.D. BOARD. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/02/2011, ALONG WITH WPC NO. 7496 OF 2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 7063 of 2010(G) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE ORDER OF COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE O.S. NO.8 OF 2005 UNDER SECTION 89(1) OF THE ACT FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) NO. 31528/2009 DATED 16/11/2009. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN O.S. NO.8 OF 2005 AND I.A.3295/2009 DATED 29/01/2010 OF THE ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE, FAST TRACK COURT NO.1, THRISSUR. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 08/02/2010 FILED BY JAYACHANDRAN KARTHA BEFORE THE SECRETARY, COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE rs THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & P.S.GOPINATHAN, JJ. ----------------------------------- W.P(C).Nos.7063 & 7496 OF 2010 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 9th day of February, 2011 JUDGMENT Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan,J. After hearing learned counsel for the parties quite at length, the Bench had minuted the following order on 22.12.2010. “This matter relates to the appointment of a hereditary trustee. One Radhakrishna Kurup was appointed as the trustee. Vijayakumar, who is the petitioner in WP(C) No.7063/10 challenged it before this court. The parties were relegated to the Board. The Board upset the appointment of Radhakrishna Kurup and appointed Vijayakumar as the trustee. Radhakrishna Kurup and Sudhakaran Kartha jointly filed a suit, challenging the decision of the Board. Radhakrishna Kurup died, pending that suit. Later, that suit was dismissed. Sudhakaran Kartha did not further prosecute that litigation. The net result, as we see it now, is that the decision of the Board, appointing Vijayakumar as the hereditary trustee should necessarily stand. WPC.7063/10 & 7496/10 2 2. May be that there are controversies in the families, but in terms of the provisions of the Travancore Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, the office of a hereditary trustee, if left unfilled, has to be filled in terms of the statutory laws. Any action taken for interim arrangement can only manage the situation during the pendency of the litigation. Therefore, notwithstanding any election conducted on the basis of the interim orders, the final decision has, necessarily, to depend on the aforenoted factual situation. 3. Sudhakaran Kartha, who is the petitioner in WP(C) No.7496/10 seeks various reliefs along with another person as the petitioner including the request to consider the claim for appointment etc. In the light of what is stated above, if the finality of Vijayakumar's appointment stands, much cannot be done in writ jurisdiction. The learned counsel for the petitioners in WP (C) No.7496/10 seeks an adjournment. Post on 05.01.2011”. Obviously, now it is for the petitioners in W.P(C).7496/10 to show how the fact situation noticed in the aforesaid order could be got over. Finality of the order appointing Vijayakumar @ WPC.7063/10 & 7496/10 3 Jayachandran Kartha stands. The only answer to this as pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P(C).7496/10 is that certain elections were conducted in terms of orders from this Court during the pendency of this writ petition and Sudhakaran Kartha, the first petitioner in W.P(C).7496/10 has been appointed as a trustee with the clearance of this Court. We are afraid we cannot concur with such submission. Even in the order dated 17.6.2010, this Court had noted the understanding that Sudhakaran Kartha could be appointed as the interim trustee and noticed the objections of Vijayakumar. The said interim arrangement that Sudhakaran Kartha could continue as the trustee was permitted to go on subject to the final decision in the writ petitions. Therefore, any arrangement on the basis of the interim order in this case has necessarily to stand vacated by the result of the writ petitions. In the light of the facts noted in the order dated 26.12.2010, we do not find our way to hold that the appointment of Vijayakumar any more survives for any adjudication at the WPC.7063/10 & 7496/10 4 hands of this Court in writ jurisdiction. Accordingly, we dismiss W.P(C).7416/10 and order W.P(C).7069/10 by directing that the Board shall forthwith give effect to its decision contained in Ext.P1 order. Let this be done within a period of two weeks from now without fail. The interim arrangement will continue only until then. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, Judge. Sd/- P.S.GOPINATHAN, Judge. kkb.11/2.