IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE FRIDAY, THE 22ND AUGUST 2008 / 31ST SRAVANA 1930 WP(C).No. 32418 of 2007(H) -------------------------- OS.71/2004 of PRINCIPAL SUB COURT, ATTINGAL .................... PETITIONER: ------------------ SUGUNAN, AGED 53,S/O.VELAYUDHAN RESIDING AT VENMANAKKAL, VAKKOM P.O. TRIVANDRUM-695 308. BY ADV. SRI.G.S.REGHUNATH RESPONDENTS: ---------------------- 1. N.SREENIVASAN, SREE NIVAS, VAKKOM-695 308. 2. K.S.SABU, SREE NILAYAM, CHIRAYANKEEZHU,TRIVANDRUM. 3. G.SASEENDRAN, KANANCHIRATHODIL VEEDU VADDOM, TRIVANDRUM-695 308. 4. ADV. G.SUSEELAN, RECEIVER OS 71/2004 SUB COURT, ATTINGAL. BY ADV. SRI.VAKKOM N.VIJAYAN FOR R1 TO 3 SRI.P.ANIYAN FOR R1 TO R3 SRI.A.S.SACHIN FOR R1 TO R3 SRI.M.R.RAJESH FOR R.4 SRI.PRADEEP.V.S. FOR R.4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C)No. 32418 OF 2007 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S. 71/2004 ON THE FILE OF THE SUB COURT, ATTINGAL. EXHIBIT P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ON I.A. 223/2006 AND I.A. 224/2006 IN O.S. 71/2004 ON THE FILE OF THE SUB COURT, ATTINGAL. EXHIBIT P3 : TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 1.4.2006 SENT BY SRI. KPC ANUJAM BHATTATHIRIPPAD. EXHIBIT P4 : TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 14.10.2007. EXHIBIT P5 : TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT ON 25.6.2007 IN O.S. 71/2004 ON THE FILE OF THE SUB COURT, ATTINGAL. EXHIBIT P6 : TURE COPY OF THE OBJECTION TO EXT. P5 FILED BY THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P7 : TRUE COPY OF THE REVIEW PETITION (IA 1625/2007) IN O.S. 71/2004 ON THE FILE OF THE SUB COURT, ATTINGAL. EXHIBIT P8 : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 26.10.2007 IN I.A. 1625/2007 IN O.S. 71/2004 ON THE FILE OF THE SUB COURT, ATTINGAL. EXHIBIT P9 : TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 29.10.2007 OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT R1(a): TRUE COPY OF REPORT DATED 23.3.2006 SUBMITTED BY ADV.G.SUSEELAN, RECEIVER OF MUKKALLUVATTOM BAHAGAVATHY TEMPLE. EXHIBIT R1(b): TRUE COPY OF THE PRASNA CHARTHU GIVEN BY PARAMESWARA MENON DT. 13.9.1995 EXHIBIT R1(c): TRUE COPY OF OPINION OF BHAHULEYAN JYOTHSIYAN ON 9.2.06. EXHIBIT R1(d): TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 6.8.2005 IN W.P.(C) NO. 10707/05(Y) OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE. vkm M. SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J ---------------------------------- W.P.(C)No. 32418 OF 2007 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 22nd day of August, 2008 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is the 12th defendant in O.S. 71/2004 on the file of Sub Court, Attingal. The suit is filed under Section 92 of Code of Civil Procedure. This petition is filed to quash Ext. P8 order and Ext. P9 notice issued by the Receiver appointed by the Court for managing the Temple. Under Ext. P9 notice, Receiver proposed to appoint a Thanthri for the temple by taking lot. Ext. P8 order was passed in I.A. 1625/2007, an application filed to review the earlier order permitting the Receiver to appoint the Thanthri by lot. Under Ext. P8 order, learned Sub Judge found that the earlier order is not to be reviewed, as claim of the petitioner that K.P.C Vishnu Bhattathirippad, the earlier Thanthri was appointed as a member of their family is not correct. This petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India contending that K.P.C Vishnu Bhattathirippad was the senior most male member of the family and the Thanthriship is a Karanma right which is available to the family as provided under Hindu Religious Institutions Act and learned Sub Judge was not justified in holding that Sri. Bhattathiripad was not W.P.(C)No. 32418 OF 2007 -2- appointed as Thanthri either on Heriditory or Karanma basis. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and respondents were heard. 3. Ext. P8 order shows that the claim of the petitioner for appointing the senior most male member of the family as Thanthri and not to appoint Thanthri by taking lot, was rejected for the reason that Sri. Vishnu Bhattathirippad was not appointed Thanthri on Heriditory or Karanma right. The learned counsel argued that there is no basis for such a finding. Ext. P8 order, does not contain the reasons for arriving such a finding. The order does not disclose that the order appointing Sri. Vishnu Bhattathirippad was even verified by the Court. Hence Ext. P8 order is quashed. Learned Sub Judge is directed to reconsider the matter afresh and decide whether the Thanthri of the temple is being appointed on Karanma right or heriditory right, after hearing the parties. M. SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE vkm