Bhageerathy vs State Of Kerala on 3 September, 2010

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 26758 of 2010(T)


1. BHAGEERATHY, D/O.SREEDHARAN,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE
                       ...       Respondent

2. TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD,

3. THE DEPUTY DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER,

4. THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER,

5. UNION OF INDIA,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.RENJITH B.MARAR

                For Respondent  :SHRI.LEJI ABRAHAM, CGC

The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.BHAVADASAN

 Dated :03/09/2010

 O R D E R
             THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN &
                        P. BHAVADASAN, JJ.
                    -------------------------------------------
                      W.P(C).No.26758 OF 2010
                    -------------------------------------------
             Dated this the 3rd day of September, 2010


                                JUDGMENT

After arguing the matter for quite some time, learned

counsel for the petitioner may be justified in saying that the

earlier litigation leading to Ext.P8 judgment in R.S.A.384/09 may

not have any bearing on the claim now put forward by the

petitioner. Whatever be the acceptability of that submission, we

are clear in our mind that what is now attempted to be projected

is also merely a right, the claim to which could be decided only

by adjudicating disputed questions of fact. We notice that in the

aforesaid R.S.A., this Court had impleaded the Travancore

Devaswom Board which had then taken a stand that it has title to

the property on behalf of the deity. Obviously therefore, it would

not be within the realm of the writ court to exercise jurisdiction

under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for resolving the

dispute now attempted to be raised. We are clear in our mind

that reliefs (ii) and (iii) by themselves would not sustain this writ

petition because they have really no nexus to the fundamental

WPC.26758/10

2

issue raised, forming the subject matter of relief No.(i). We say

this because the effect of the 40th amendment to the Constitution

and the Thiruppuvaram Payment (Abolition) Act, 1969 would not

have any bearing on the claim which is otherwise sought to be

founded with reference to the rights of the petitioner and the so

called other relatives. We also clarify that we do not express

anything even on the cohesiveness of the tharwad or family since

we are clear in our mind that the Hindu Joint Family System

(Abolition) Act, 1976, in so far as it impacts certain hereditary

rights in relation to temples, still remain unanswered, including

by the Apex Court, and we are advised that all such questions

are left open as of now. However, we do not state anything

finally on this because the court below, if at all moved with a

proper suit, is to decide the matter untrammelled by anything

stated in this judgment. The writ petition is ordered

accordingly.

Sd/-

THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN,
Judge.

Sd/-

P.BHAVADASAN,
Judge.

kkb.4/09.