IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN TUESDAY, THE 14TH JULY 2009 / 23RD ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 7918 of 2009(O) ------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN IA.902/2005 IN OS.199/1957 of I ADDL. DISTRICT COURT, KOLLAM .................... PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ G. RAVEENDRAN UNNITHAN, AMMACHI VEEDU, KAIKULANGARA, KOLLAM. BY ADVS. MR.NAGARAJ NARAYANAN, MR.SAIJO HASSAN, MR.A.S.SABU. RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. K. THANKAPPAN UNNITHAN, AMMACHI VEEDU, KAIKULANGARA, KOLLAM. 2. G. MOHANAN UNNITHAN, AMMACHI VEEDU, KAIKULANGARA, KOLLAM. 3. G. NARAYANAN UNNITHAN @ RAMACHANDRAN UNNITHAN, DEVI ASRAMAM, KOLLAM-12. 4. BHAVANI ITTY CHELLAMMA ITTY, AMMACHI VEEDU, KAIKULANGARA, KOLLAM. 5. G. SREEPATHI UNNITHAN, DEVI ASRAMAM, KOLLAM-12. 6. RAMESH CHANDRAN UNNITHAN, DEVI ASRAMAM, KOLLAM-12. 7. SANTHA ITTY, DEVI ASRAMAM, KOLLAM-12. 8. SOMASEKHARAN UNNITHAN, S/O. LEELA ITTY, AMMACHI VEEDU, KAIKULANGARA, KOLLAM. Kss ..2/- ...2.... WPC.NO.7918/2009 O 9. RAJASEKHARAN UNNITHAN, S/O. LEELA ITTY, AMMACHI VEEDU, KAIKULANGARA, KOLLAM. 10. VIJAYASEKHARAN UNNITHAN, S/O. LEELA ITTY, AMMACHI VEEDU, KAIKULANGARA, KOLLAM. 11. GEETHA ITTY, D/O. LEELA ITTY, AMMACHI VEEDU, KAIKULANGARA, KOLLAM. 12. CHANDRIKA ITTY, D/O. NIRUPAMA ITTY, AMMACHI VEEDU, KAIKULANGARA, KOLLAM. 13. SANDHY ITTY, D/O. RAJAMMA ITTY, AMMACHI VEEDU,KAIKULANGARA, KOLLAM. 14. KRISHNAN UNNITHAN, S/O. INDIRA ITTY, AMMACHI VEEDU,KAIKULANGARA, KOLLAM. 15. RAJALEKSHMI, D/O. INDIRA ITTY, AMMACHI VEEDU, KAIKULANGARA, KOLLAM. 16. MADHUSOODANAN UNNITHAN, S/O. INDIRA ITTY,AMMACHI VEEDU, KAIKULANGARA, KOLLAM. 17. MAYA ITTY, D/O. INDIRA ITTY, AMMACHI VEEDU, KAIKULANGARA, KOLLAM. 18. NISHA ITTY, D/O. MAHESWARI ITTY, AMMACHI VEEDU, KAIKULANGARA, KOLLAM. 19. SYAMA ITTY, D/O. MAHESWARI ITTY, AMMACHI VEEDU, KAIKULANGARA, KOLLAM. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/07/2009 ALONG WITH WPC NO. 15007 OF 2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C).NOS.7918 & 15007 OF 2009 () ----------------------------------- Dated this the 14th day of July, 2009 J U D G M E N T These two writ petitions have been filed challenging the common order passed by the Ist Additional District Judge, Kollam in I.A.No.902/2005 in O.S.No.199/1957. Petitioner in the above I.A. has moved WP(C).No.7918/2009 and the 2nd counter petitioner in that I.A. has filed the other writ petition WP(C).No.15007/2009. In the above suit instituted under Section 92 CPC, a scheme was framed for the management of the Ammachi veedu Temple, a private temple in Kollam District, for its management, and, later, some modifications were made to the scheme, which are stated to have been approved by the court. The modified claim contained a clause to deal with complaints arising in respect of administration of the temple and also of its employees. Clause 13 related to such complaints reads thus: W.P.(C).7918 & 15007/2009 2 Clause 13: For the purpose of taking decisions on petitions connected with the trust, and all institutions coming under it, and all complaints relating to the Management and employees, any member of the tarwad can file a petition in the case and seek reliefs including the removal of concerned persons.” By virtue of the above clause, it is the case of the petitioner that petitions are filed from time to time in respect of complaints connected with the trust before the court in which the scheme was framed and later modified, and that court also passed orders on such petitions. The I.A. giving rise to the order impugned in these writ petitions was also filed invoking clause 13 of the modified scheme though not specifically stated as such in the petition, by one among the members, impeaching the continuance of the present manager of the temple contending that he has no right to do so for various reasons stated imputing his unfitness to hold the office of the manager. The 2nd counter petitioner, who has filed the other writ petition also supported the case of the petitioner that the present manager is unfit to hold the office of the manager of the temple. Though the petition was not opposed W.P.(C).7918 & 15007/2009 3 to by any of the respondents including the 1st respondent whose removal from the office of the manager was sought for contending that he is unfit to hold such office, the learned District Judge, after examining the materials and hearing the counsel found that the application lacks merit and cannot be allowed with the result it was dismissed. Propriety and correctness of that order passed by the learned District Judge is imputed in these petitions invoking the supervisory jurisdiction vested with this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 2. I heard the counsel appearing for the petitioner in the two writ petitions. No enquiry was conducted over the petition imputing serious allegations against the present manager and the conclusions arrived at by the learned District Judge to dismiss the petition are factually incorrect and legally unsustainable, is the submission of the counsel. To my query whether the removal of the manager of the temple as sought for would not amount to seeking of a relief under sub section (1) of Section 92 of CPC, and if so, whether it was possible to W.P.(C).7918 & 15007/2009 4 do so without instituting a separate suit despite the settling of a scheme in a previous suit for the administration of the temple it is contended by the counsel appearing for both the petitioners that by virtue of clause 13 in the modified scheme that relief can also be sought from the very same court which passed a decree settling a scheme for the administration of the temple. The proposition so canvassed cannot be accepted since after settling of the scheme in a suit filed under Section 92 of CPC, a modification of the scheme, that too with notice to all the parties having interest over the trust alone, may be possible under law to provide for and resolve any dispute relating to any of the reliefs already granted under sub section (1) of Section 92 of CPC, for smooth and effective administration of that trust, and further, to overcome any contingency or difficulty which has arisen in its administration after the framing of the scheme by the court. The relief sought in the present petition is the removal of the manager, the 1st counter petitioner challenging his competency to hold that office. In otherwards, removal of the trustee imputing his unfitness to act as such, which no doubt, is a relief coming W.P.(C).7918 & 15007/2009 5 under sub section (1) of Section 92 of CPC is sought for impleading a few persons having interest in the trust, the temple. The petitioner has sought for the removal of the trustee, which ex facie is not entertainable. On previous occasions, the court which passed the scheme had entertained such complaints and the challenges from such orders impeached before this Court from time to time, in respect of matters connected with the administration of the temple, which fall within the reliefs covered under sub section (1) of Section 92 of CPC, is canvassed by the learned counsel for the petitioner to contend that such petitions are entertainable before the court which passed the scheme. I am unable to subscribe to the view canvassed by the learned counsel; but, that question I find need not be determined in the present petition since it is seen on merits itself the petition as found by the learned District Judge was not entertainable. So much so, I leave the above question open and refrain from examining in the present petition whether such petition for removal of a trustee, by way of interlocutory proceedings, could have been entertained by the court which passed a decree framing a W.P.(C).7918 & 15007/2009 6 scheme, after settling such a scheme for the administration of the temple. 3. Petitioner has advanced a case in a suit filed by some interested persons contending that the temple is a public religious trust the 1st counter petitioner did not challenge it nor defend the case of the trust properly, and, further, he is not a member of the 'Ammachi veedu tarwad'. The learned District Judge noticed that the petition for removal of the manager was filed in the year 2005 and it was not prosecuted nor the attention of the court was drawn to such petition for a period of more than three years. It was further noticed that clause 1 (b) of the modified scheme provides under what circumstances a manager can be removed as unfit to hold such office and none of the grounds thereunder satisfied the present case for removal of the 1st counter petitioner. The temple was left in common when in a suit for partition, division of properties was effected among the members of the tarwad, and it was retained as an endowment, was also taken note of by the learned District Judge to hold that all members W.P.(C).7918 & 15007/2009 7 of the said tarwad are beneficiaries of the said temple. It was found that the predecessor of the 1st counter petitioner was a member of a collateral thavazhy and in view of the existence of the tarwad temple, which is retained in common to all the members of the tarwad, it was held, he can claim to be a beneficiary of the temple. Though the petitioners contended that another person one Thankappan Unnithan is the senior most member of the tarwad and, thus, he is entitled to be appointed as the manager of the temple no such challenge was raised by that person and he did not come forward to put up such a case nor to challenge the fitness of the 1st counter petitioner to hold the office of the manager of the temple was also taken into account by the court to hold that the petition filed for removal of the 1st counter petitioner is unworthy of any merit and cannot be allowed in the given facts of the case. I do not find any impropriety or illegality in the order passed by the learned District Judge and no interference with that order in exercise of the visitorial jurisdiction of this Court is called for. W.P.(C).7918 & 15007/2009 8 Writ petitions are devoid of any merit, and are accordingly dismissed. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN JUDGE prp