IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 26453 of 2010(O)
1. R.KRISHNAN KUTTY, PRESIDENT,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. NARAYANAN VALSALA, LAL BHAVAN,
... Respondent
2. NISHAMOL, LAL BHAVAN,
3. NITHYAMOL, LAL BHAVAN,
4. NIRAN LAL, LAL BHAVAN,
For Petitioner :SRI.B.MOHANLAL
For Respondent :SRI.C.RAJENDRAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOMAS P.JOSEPH
Dated :03/09/2010
O R D E R
THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J.
====================================
W.P(C) NO.26453 of 2010
====================================
Dated this the 03rd day of September, 2010
J U D G M E N T
ExhibitP8, order is under challenge in this Writ Petition at the
instance of petitioner-plaintiff in the suit. Petitioner filed O.S.
No.114 of 2010 in the court of learned Principal Munsiff, Kollam for
a decree for prohibitory injunction against respondents trespassing
into the suit property in R.S. No.301/22 where admittedly a temple
is situated. Petitioner also wanted relief of injunction against
respondents causing damage of temple or interfering with its
administration. Petitioner claimed to be the President of Kuravar
Mahasabha (for short, “the Sabha”) and stated that suit property
and temple belonged to one Ayyappan Narayanan, the late
husband of respondent No.1 as per document No.5673 of 1997
and on the death of said Ayyappan Narayanan the said property
devolved on respondent No.1. But on account of her inability to
manage the affairs of the temple she requested the Sabha to take
over the temple and property on lease and accordingly a
registered lease deed was executed on 16.03.2009 as per which
the suit property and temple are in the possession of the Sabha
and it is being managed by that Sabha through petitioner. There
W.P(C) No.26453 of 2010
-: 2 :-
was Ext.P2, application for order of temporary injunction against
respondents who filed Ext.P3, objection to that application and
Ext.P4, written statement in the suit. Learned Munsiff while
considering Ext.P2, application passed Ext.P5, order whereby as
an interim arrangement petitioner was permitted to carry on
administration of the suit property and temple subject to the
conditions stated therein including payment of premium to the
respondents at the rate of Rs.150/- per month. A few months
later respondent Nos.1 to 4 filed Ext.P6, application alleging that
petitioner has not complied with Ext.P5, order and to permit
respondent Nos. 1 to 4 to administer and manage the temple.
Learned Munsiff passed Ext.P8, order on that application allowing
respondents to run the temple. That order is under challenge at
the instance of petitioner. Learned counsel for petitioner
contends that learned Munsiff has proceeded on the basis that
Ext.P6, application was not objected by the petitioner. But
petitioner had filed Ext.P7, objection to that application which
was not taken into account. It is contended by learned counsel
that to comply with the direction in Ext.P5, order petitioner
wanted respondent No.1 to give details of her bank account so
that premium could be deposited in that account but she did not
W.P(C) No.26453 of 2010
-: 3 :-
give the details. Thereon amount due for three months (Rs.450)
was sent to respondent No.1 by money order which she refused to
accept. It is pointed out by learned counsel that money order
coupon was also produced along with Ext.P7, objection in the
trial court but not taken into account by learned Munsiff. Learned
counsel therefore requested that Ext.P8, order may be set aside
and petitioner may be permitted to perform in accordance with
Ext.P5, order. In response it is contended by learned counsel for
respondent Nos.1 to 4 that there was gross violation of conditions
prescribed in Ext.P5, order and thereon respondents were
constrained to file Ext.P6, application. It is also contended that
when Ext.P6, application was heard no objection was on record as
seen from Ext.P7 which does not bear a date. Hence learned
Munsiff cannot be faulted with for observing that Ext.P6,
application was not opposed by the petitioner.
2. I have perused Ext.P7, but it does not bear any date.
Even as per the version of respondents Ext.P7, objection was filed
at least on the date of Ext.P8, order passed by the learned
Munsiff. It is seen from Ext.P7 that the money order coupon to
evidence that respondent No.1 had refused to receive the
premium payable for three months was produced along with
W.P(C) No.26453 of 2010
-: 4 :-
Ext.P7, objection. I do not forget that respondents have a case
that the money order was sent only after Ext.P7, objection was
preferred. But on hearing counsel on both sides it appears to me
that grievance of respondents is that premium was not paid per
month as directed in Ext.P5, order and according to them there
was also no poojas conducted in the temple at the instance of
petitioner. This of course is disputed by petitioner. While this
Writ Petition was admitted I had directed that operation of Ext.P8,
order will stand in abeyance. It is not disputed that at least from
the date of the said order petitioner is continuing with the
administration and management of the temple. Having regard to
these aspects I am persuaded to think that petitioner has to be
given an opportunity to comply with Ext.P5, order. But he has to
comply with the conditions stated therein, strictly and any
violation would enable respondent Nos. 1 to 4 to move fresh
application in the trial court.
Resultantly, this Writ Petition is allowed in the following
lines:
(i) Exhibit .P8, order is set aside and Exhibit
P6, application will stand dismissed.
(ii) Petitioner is directed to deposit in the trial
court for payment to respondent No.1 all arrears of
W.P(C) No.26453 of 2010
-: 5 :-
premium due till 23.09.2010 on or before 30.09.2010.
(iii) Petitioner shall continue to pay to
respondent No.1/deposit in the trial court for such
payment premium payable as per Ext.P5, order
within five (5) days from the date on which the
amount falls due (i.e., on the 23rd of each month).
(iv) It will be open to respondent Nos.1 to 4
to request learned Munsiff to periodically enhance the
premium payable as per Ext.P5, order and if any such
request is made learned Munsiff after hearing counsel
on both sides shall pass appropriate orders in that
regard.
It is made clear that non-compliance of any the conditions
stated in Ext.P5, order would enable respondent Nos.1 to 4 to
file fresh application in the trial court seeking permission to
administer the suit property and conduct poojas in the temple
subject to appropriate terms and conditions the learned Munsiff
may impose.
THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE.
vsv