IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN TUESDAY, THE 30TH JUNE 2009 / 9TH ASHADHA 1931 CRP.No. 271 of 2008() ------------------------------ OS.NO.6/1999 OF ADDL.DISTRICT COURT, ALAPPUZHA. .................... REVISION PETITIONER/ PETITIONER: ----------------------------------------------------- KERALA KSHETHRA SAMRAKSHNA SAMATHY, KOZHIKODE, REPRESENTED BY MEGHALA ORGANIZER, K.P.RADHAKRISHNAN, SON OF PADMANABHA PILLAI, ANJALAYIL HOUSE, THANNEERMUKKOM VILLAGE. BY ADV. MR.N.ANILKUMAR. RESPONDENT/ COUNTER PETITIONER: --------------------------------------------------------- 1. P.G.GUPTAN NAMBOOTHIRIPPAD, PADUTHOL PAZHOOR ILLOM, PAZHOOR KARA, PIRAVOM, BY P.A.HOLDER PARAMESWARAN NAIR, MANAGER, CHALINGARAYANANAPURAM TEMPLE, THNNEERMUKKAM. 2. TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY. BY THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: prv. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ----------------------------------- C.R.P.No.271 of 2008 --------------------------------- Dated this the 30th day of June, 2009 O R D E R Petitioner in the revision petition had moved two applications seeking his impleadment as additional defendant in a suit filed by the first respondent against the second respondent. Suit was one instituted under Section 37(4) of the Travancore Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950, hereinafter referred to as the Act, impeaching the assumption of a management of a temple by the second respondent. First respondent contended that it is a private temple and the assumption of which is not to be taken over by the second respondent in exercising its powers under the aforesaid Act. Suit instituted as early as a decade ago is pending on the file of the Additional District Judge, Alappuzha. In the aforesaid suit, petitioner, a samithy, moved two applications as stated above for its impleadment as an additional defendant. The applications were opposed by the plaintiff, the first respondent as well as the second defendant. The learned Additional District Judge, after considering the merit of those applications, in the light of the objections raised by the respondents, dismissed them by a common order dated C.R.P.No.271 of 2008 2 15.10.2007. Propriety and correctness of that order is impeached by the petitioner in the present revision. 2. I heard the counsel for the petitioner. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the question whether he is a proforma party, even if not a necessary party in the suit was not considered by the court below and in the nature of the reliefs claimed in the suit in which a declaration was sought that the temple is a private temple, the petitioner should have been impleaded as a co-defendant in the suit to resist the relief, when he has got a case that the temple is a public temple. Petitioner need not show direct interest in the controversy arising for adjudication in the suit, but, need only show that he has some interest in the subject matter involved, is the submission of the learned counsel. Reliance is placed on Knanaya Catholic Congress v. Biju Utup (1990 (1) KLJ 567) and also Anil Kumar Singh v. Shivnath Mishra (1995 (3) SCC 147) to buttress the proposition that the petitioner who seeks impledment need only show that he is a proper party and not a necessary party. During the course of the hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner also handed over to me the judgment C.R.P.No.271 of 2008 3 rendered in C.R.P.No.433/2006 by this Court. That revision arose from a previous application moved by the petitioner seeking for his transposition as plaintiff in the suit, which was dismissed by the trial court. The aforesaid revision impeaching the correctness of that decision was disposed confirming the order of the court below, but, granting permission to the petitioner to move proper application to get himself impleaded as additional defendant. 4. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel with reference to the order impugned in the revision. It is seen from the order impugned that the petitioner had moved previous application for his transposition as plaintiff six years after the institution of the suit. The basis for such claim was that the temple is a public temple and not a private temple as claimed by the plaintiff. As already indicated the petition was dismissed and in the revision the dismissal order was confirmed, but opportunity was given to the petitioner to file an appropriate petition to get himself impeaded as additional defendant. That revision was disposed of judgment dated 26.10.2006. It is seen from the impugned order that the petitioner moved the present C.R.P.No.271 of 2008 4 applications, I.A.No.257/2003 on 27.3.2007 and the other I.A.No.598/2003 on 4.9.2007. The learned counsel submits that the second I.A.No.598/2003 is one supporting the relief canvassed in the previous application, and in both applications, the question canvassed is impleadment of the petitioner as an additional defendant in the suit. 5. In examining the merit of the application moved by the petitioner as an additional defendant in the suit, reference to Section 37(4) of the Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act emerges for consideration. Section 37(4) reads thus: “37(4): Any person deeming himself aggrieved by an order of assumption passed on any of the grounds mentioned in clauses (c), (d) and (e) of sub- section (1) of this Section may, within a period of six months from the date of the publication of the order of assumption in the Gazette, institute in the District Court, within whose jurisdiction the subject matter is situate, a suit against the Board to set aside such order: Provided that subject to the result of the suit, if any, the order of assumption shall be final”. Clause (a) to (e) of Section 37 of the Act envisages the contingencies under which an assumption of a management of a C.R.P.No.271 of 2008 5 Hindu Religious Endowment can be taken over by the Devaswom Board constituted under the Act. What is a Hindu Religious Endowment is also defined under the Act. Whenever a Hindu Religious Endowment is taken over in any of the contingencies covered by clause (a) to (e) of the Act, any aggrieved party can challenge the order of assumption of management by filing a suit within six months from the date of assumption order before the District Court, in the jurisdiction of which the endowment is situate. Admittedly, the management of the temple involved was taken over by an order of assumption by Travancore Devaswom Board, second defendant in the suit. That order of assumption was challenged by the first respondent in the petition by instituting a suit as O.S.No.6/99 before the Additional District Court, Alappuzha contending that it is a private temple. 6. The question now posed for consideration is whether the petitioner or any other party can get themselves impleaded in such a suit either as a necessary party or a proper party, supporting/impeaching the order of assumption of management of the temple by the Board. In that circumstance what is stated under Section 37(4) of the Act cannot be ignored. The right to C.R.P.No.271 of 2008 6 challenge the order of assumption is given only to an aggrieved party. Right to any other party, other than the Devaswom Board which assume management for determination of the question whether the assumption is valid, proper and correct as statutory right conferred on an aggrieved person to challenge the order of assumption of the management of a temple by a statutory authority cannot be stultified by any other person contending that he has every right to show that the order of assumption is proper and correct. If at all, he has any such right, he has to approach the competent forum and seek appropriate relief for that purpose by recourse to law, if so provided. The learned District Judge has also taken note that the petitioner has not spelt out in his application moved what is his interest in the subject matter of the suit or the reason why should he be impleaded as an additional defendant. It is further stated in the order that he has no case that the plaintiff was not properly conducting the suit or there is collusion between the plaintiff and the defendant. Needless to say, plaintiff is the master of the suit and he has to decide against whom he should seek a relief. No stranger can come and claim as of right that he should also be impleaded in the suit to C.R.P.No.271 of 2008 7 resist the relief claimed by the plaintiff in the suit. Of course, the court can permit a third party to come on record as an additional party, if satisfied that his presence is required as a necessary party or proforma party to determine the controversy arising for adjudication. The learned Additional District Judge, after taking note of the facts and circumstances involved and the nature of the relief claimed in the suit has found that the petitioner is neither a necessary party nor a proforma party. I do not find any jurisdictional error or infirmity in the order passed by the learned District Judge. 7. The two decisions relied by the learned counsel have no application to the facts of this case. In Anil Kumar Singh v. Shivnath Mishra (1995 (3) SCC 147) the apex court has held there is no right to any party to say that he is a necessary or proper party. The suit covered by that decision is one for specific performance in which a third party who had nothing to do with the contract wanted to get himself impleaded as a party. It was held, he was neither a property party or necessary party. Observations in that decision canvassed by the learned counsel cannot be read without reference to the facts and circumstances C.R.P.No.271 of 2008 8 presented in that case. In the other decision Knanaya Catholic Congress v. Biju Utup (1990 (1) KLJ 567),considering the nature of the disputes involved and the relief claimed, court was satisfied that the presence of the petitioner which was in fact a body of the community in the suit, wherein rights and customs of that community were involved, was practicable and required, and in that view of the matter it was held that the party, who applied for impleadment as a co-defendant in the suit has to be impleaded. There is no parallel or connection with the facts involved in that case with the present case. The revision is devoid of any merit, and it is dismissed. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE. bkn/-