IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH MARCH 2011 / 25TH PHALGUNA 1932 OP(C).No. 170 of 2011(O) ------------------------------------ CMA.NO.31/2009 of SUB COURT, CHERTHALA .................... PETITIONERS -------------------- CHARAMANGALAM EAST N.S.S. KARAYOGAM (1617), KOCHANAKULANGARA, MUHAMMA, ALAPPUZHA, PIN-688 525, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT P.G.RAMACHANDRA MENON, SECRETARY, P.R.RADHAKRISHNA MENON AND TREASURER, K.KOMALAM PILLAI. BY ADV. SRI.MOHAN C.MENON RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. KOCHANAKULANGARA DEVASWOM, BY ITS TRUSTEE, KAYIKKARA, CHELAT, MANJEZHAM FAMILY TRUST, (A-153/09), MUHAMMA BY ITS PRESIDENT, P.OMANAKUTTAN, S/O.PRABHAKARAN NAIR, CHALAMADATHIL, MATTATHIL, CHARAMANGALAM.PIN- 688 525 2. SECRETARY, C.R.GOPALAKRISHNAN, S/O.V.K.GOVINDA MENON, JAYA NIVAS, KAYIPPURAM, MUHAMMA.PIN- 688 525 3. TREASURER, SHIVAPRASAD, S/O.GANGADHARAN POTTY, KAYIKKARAYIL, MUHAMMA POST. PIN-688 525. BY ADVS. SRI.P.B.KRISHNAN SMT.GEETHA P.MENON SRI.P.B.SUBRAMANYAN SRI.P.M.NEELAKANDAN THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts OP(C)NO.170/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1 COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 19/9/2009 OF THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, CHERTHALA IN I.A.NO.1995/2009 IN O.S.NO.343/2009. P2 COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 20/11/2010 IN C.M.A.NO.31/2009 (FILED ON 23/10/2009) OF THE SUB COURT, CHERTHALA. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO.JUDGE sts P.BHAVADASAN, J. ------------------------------------- OP(C)No.170 of 2011-O ------------------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of March 2011 Judgment This Original Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed against Ext.P2 order passed by the lower appellate court on 20.11.2010 confirming the interim order passed by the trial court in favour of the plaintiff. The facts absolutely necessary for the disposal of the OP are as follows : 2. The allegation in the plaint is that the temple in question, which originally belonged to three families, was entrusted by the Trustees of the temple to the local NSS Karayogam. According to the plaintiff, the temple is now being mismanaged and amounts are being spent by the members of the Karayogam indiscriminately. On the said allegation, the suit was laid, seeking recovery of the temple on the basis of the 'udampadi' by which the management of the temple was given to the local NSS Karayogam. The defendants resisted the suit raising various contentions, OPC 170/11 2 which are not very relevant for the present purpose. The plaintiff filed IA No.1995/09, praying for an interim injunction, restraining the defendants from alienating or encumbering the property and also from spending amounts indiscriminately. The trial court, after hearing both sides, passed an order, which reads as follows : “In the result, the IA is allowed. Defendants are restrained from alienating or encumbering the assets and properties of the temple and from expending any money other than required for the day-to-day affairs without the permission of the court through a temporary injunction till the disposal of the suit. Considering the nature and circumstances of the case, there is no order as to costs.” 3. Aggrieved by the said order, the defendants carried the matter in appeal as CMA No.31/09 before the Sub Court, Cherthala. The appellate court concurred with the view of the trial court and confirmed the said order. That brings the petitioner to this court. OPC 170/11 3 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the stringent condition imposed regarding the spending of the amounts other than for the day-to-day affairs of the temple after getting prior sanction of the court causes considerable difficulties to them and there was no justification for imposing such a condition. Therefore, the petitioner contended that the restriction on spending of amounts except for the day-to-day affairs of the temple, may be deleted. 5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent pointed out that amounts are being spent indiscriminately. Several other contentions were also raised, which are not very relevant for the present purpose. 6. This OP can be disposed of on a short ground. As far as the condition regarding the restriction on alienation and encumbrance is concerned, no interference is called for by this court. But, there seems to be some justification in the petitioner's claim that the restriction on spending more amount than what is required for the day-to- OPC 170/11 4 day affairs of the temple, causes considerable difficulties in the management of the temple and there may be some relaxation in that regard. After going through the orders of the courts below, it is felt that it may not be proper to give a free hand to the petitioner to expend amounts. However, the fact remains that complete restriction on spending amounts more than what is required for the day-to-day affairs of the temple may cause difficulties for the management of the temple. There may be unexpected expenses which may have to be met and for that funds may be required. It is not practical to rush to the court each and every time to get sanction from the court. Therefore, the petitioner is permitted to incur expenses upto a limit of Rs.10,000/- per month beyond which the permission of the court will be required. Both sides agree that it will be better in the interest of justice that the suit is disposed of at the earliest. This Court is given to understand that the pleadings are complete and issues have already been raised in the suit. Under such circumstances, there is no OPC 170/11 5 reason why the suit shall not be disposed of so that the dispute is given a quietus. In the result, this OP is disposed of as follows : 1.Apart from meeting the day-to-day expenses of the temple, the petitioner is allowed to incur an expense of Rs.10,000/- per month beyond which they will have to get sanction from the Munsiff's court, concerned. 2.The petitioner shall submit accounts for the amounts expended before the said Munsiff's court between the date of the interim order passed by the court below till date. 3.The Munsiff's Court may make every endeavour to dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, before the end of the year 2011. The suit shall be disposed of based on the evidence adduced before the court and untrammeled by any of the observations made by any of the courts while disposing of the interlocutory matters. There will be no order as to costs. P.Bhavadasan, Judge sta OPC 170/11 6 OPC 170/11 7