IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR FRIDAY, THE 3RD OCTOBER 2008 / 11TH ASWINA 1930 WP(C).No. 29320 of 2008(M) -------------------------- CMA.64/2008 of II ADDL. DISTRICT COURT, TRIVANDRUM OS.1991/2007 of II ADDL.M.C.,TRIVANDRUM .................... PETITIONER: --------------- PANGAODE KAVIL SRI. BHAGAVATHY TEMPLE TRUST, PANGODE WARD, SASTHAMANGALAM VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, SURESH KUMAR, S/O. SADASIVA PANICKER, AGED 55, PANGODE KABVIL SRI.BHAGAVATHY TEMPLE TRUST, PANGODE WARD, SASTHAMANGALAM VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM BY ADV. SRI.J.S.AJITHKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. N. BALAKRISHNAN, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS S/O. NANU PANICKER, RESIDING AT T.C. 16/523, N. JAGATHY THYCAUD VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 2. SOMAN, RESIDING AT T.K. VILAS, MUTTADA P.O. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 3. RAJAGOPALA KURUP, S/O. VASU KURUP, RESIDING AT RAJA GOIRI VENKAVILA, PAZHAKUTTI P.O. NEDUMANGAD 4. RAJESH, S/O. BHASKARAN NAIR, RESIDING AT T.C. 3/1300(1), POURNAMI, PATTOM PALACE P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 5. RAVINDRAN, RESDING AT THOPPIL VEEDU, VALIYASALA CHALAI P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 6. PARAMESWARAN, RESIDING AT KARTHIKA, ATTOORKONAM, PEYAD P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM WP(C).No. 29320 of 2008(M) -:2:- 7. SATHEESAN, RESIDING AT SREE GURUMANNAMKONAM, PRASANTH NAGAR, MEDICAL COLLEGE P.O. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 8. PANGODU KAVIL SREE BHAGAVATHY KSHETHRA PUROGAMANA SAMRAKSHANA SAMITHY, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PANGODU KAVIL SREE BHAGAVATHY KSHETHRA PUROGAMANA SAMARAKSHANA SAMITHY, PEYAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 9. RAMAKRISHNAN, S/O. VELAYUDHAN, RESIDING AT KULATHINKARA VEEDU, ELIPPODU, THIRUMALA P.O. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 10. RADHAKRISHNAN, S/O. NEELAKANTAN, AGED 53 YEARS, GOVERNMENT SERVANT, RESIDING AT KUNNUPURATHU VEEDU, T.C. 19/424, MUDAVANMUKAL P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 11. V. PREMKUMAR, S/O. VASUDEVAN, AGED 42 YEARS, DEVAM, THITTAKAVU, T.C. 8/1200(1), POGUMOODU, MEDICAL COLLEGE P.O., ULLOOR VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 12. SHAJI, S/O. SASIDHARAN, AGED 40 YEARS, BUSINES, RESIDING AT T.C. 9/1840, KOCHAR ROAD, SASTHAMANGALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 3-10-2008 , THE COURT ON 03/10/2008 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * W.P.(C) No. 29320 of 2008 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Dated: 3-10-2008 JUDGMENT The petitioners in this Writ Petition are the plaintiffs in O.S. 1991 of 2007 on the file of the Ist Addl. Munsiff's Court, Thiruvananthapuram. The said suit is one for declaration that the plaintiff trust alone is competent to deal with the affairs of the Pangode Kavil Sree Bhagavathy Temple Trust and the plaint schedule property in preference to the 8th defendant Samithi and in the alternative to set aside a settlement dated 25-09-2006 of SRO, Nedumangadu and for consequential injunction. The suit has been filed under Order 1 Rule 8 C.P.C. Along with the plaint, the plaintiffs also filed I.A. No. 10214 of 2007 seeking a temporary injunction in terms of the prayer in the plaint. Eventhough the learned Munsiff granted a temporary injunction as prayed for on 11-4-2008, in an appeal preferred by the defendants as C.M.A. No. 64 of 2008 the II Addl. District Judge, Thiruvananthapuram has, taking note of the scramble for possession and management of the temple which generates sizeable W.P.C. 29320 of 2008+ -:2:- revenue has though it fit to place the temple and its properties under receivership with a direction that four persons from each side shall be selected as receivers. The operative portion of the judgment of the lower appellate court reads as follows:- “In the result, the appeal allowed in part. Order of the lower court is hereby set aside. The lower court is hereby directed to appoint a party receivers within 3 days on receipt of this order for taking possession of the plaint schedule properties and to administer the affairs of the temple till the disposal of the suit. Four persons each from the plaintiff's and defendants' side shall be selected as the party receivers. It is hereby made clear that the party receivers will not be entitled to any remuneration or any payment for the service rendered by them as party receivers. They shall not be permitted to meet any expenditure exceeding Rs. 5,000/- p.m. without permission of the lower court. Party receivers shall keep an account of expenditure and the services rendered by them while administering the temple and to submit report to the lower court on every month. They shall not have any right to create any encumbrance, lien or charge over the temple properties or its assets”. 2. Eventhough the learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner /plaintiff assailed the judgment of the lower appellate court, I see no reason to interfere with the said judgment which has provided the most democratic way of finding a solution for the disputes till the suit is finally disposed of by the trial court. It cannot be gainsaid that the temple is having substantial assets and revenue which explains he scramble for possession. In a situation like this, where the properties could be said to be in medio, receivership is the best possible method by which the properties can be preserved so that ultimately the W.P.C. 29320 of 2008+ -:3:- person who succeeds in the litigation is not deprived of the corpus as well as the income of the subject matter. of dispute. This Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed without prejudice to the right of the petitioner/plaintiff to establish their right in the suit. The suit shall be disposed of untrammelled by the observations in the impugned orders. Dated this the 3rd October 2008. V. RAMKUMAR, (JUDGE) ani.