IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
AS.No. 334 of 1998(C)
1. N.SANKARA MENON
... Petitioner
Vs
1. PAZOOR PERUMTHRIKKOVIL KSHETHRA BHARANA
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.G.SREEKUMAR
For Respondent :SRI.K.K.CHANDRAN PILLAI
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.N.KRISHNAN
Dated :05/07/2010
O R D E R
M.N. KRISHNAN, J.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
A.S. NO. 334 OF 1998
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Dated this the 5th day of July, 2010.
J U D G M E N T
This appeal is preferred against the
judgment and decree passed by the Subordinate
Judge, Muvattupuzha in O.S.267/94. The suit is
for a declaration and recovery of possession.
It is the case of the plaintiff that Pazhoor
Perumthrikkovil Temple is an ancient Temple of
the State and it is owned by 14 families and
those members of the 14 families under an
agreement dated 22.1.66 has entrusted the
administration of the Temple with the first
defendant for a period of six years or until a
new body is created for the administration of
the Temple. Now it is the case of the plaintiff
that nine such families being totally
dissatisfied with the management conducted by
A.S. 334 OF 1998
-2-
the first defendant had cancelled the power of
management in favour of D1 by virtue of Ext.A1
and therefore challenges the alienation made by
the first defendant in favour of strangers and
thus a suit for recovery of possession is filed
on the strength of title.
2. On the other hand defendants 1 to 3
would contend that the management of the temple
takes in the power to deal the with the property
and it has not been cancelled by Ext.A1 and
therefore the plaintiff has no locus standi at
all to file the suit. It is stated that though
the agreement Ext.A1 is alleged to be written in
the month of September 1994 it is seen
registered only on 14.11.94 and at that time one
of the signatories to the document namely
Jayananthan Namboodiri was not alive as he died
on 9.11.94. It is also stated that though two
A.S. 334 OF 1998
-3-
of the persons representing two Illoms’ were
incompetent to represent the Iloms and therefore
at the most only there were six illoms that had
joined Ext.A1 and so the document Ext.A1 would
not have any binding effect so as to cancel
Ext.B3 which was entered into by the members of
the family. The Court also on an appreciation
of the materials came to the conclusion that
Ext.A1 as such does not take away or invalidate
Ext.B3 and therefore held that the plaintiff was
not competent to institute a suit. It was also
held by the Court that as per Ext.A1 the persons
who has to institute the suit are the president
and the treasurer whereas they have not joined
as such in that capacity and therefore the suit
is not maintainable on that ground also. It has
to be stated that the suit is filed on the
strength of Ext.A1. It is not filed in the
A.S. 334 OF 1998
-4-
capacity of a member of a family or beneficiary.
According to the plaintiffs Ext.A1 confirms the
right of the plaintiff to institute the suit.
But in the light of the finding rendered by the
learned Subordinate Judge that the majority of
the families are not there in Ext.A1 and further
when the members who had instituted the suit are
not competent under Ext.A1 also to file the
suit, the suit itself is not maintainable.
When the suit itself is not maintainable, it is
not proper on the part of the Court to enter
into a finding regarding the transaction entered
into between the parties. I make it very clear
that I am not expressing anything on merits with
respect to the transaction and it is a matter
that has to be considered only in a properly
constituted suit. Therefore the finding entered
into by the Subordinate Judge in this case would
A.S. 334 OF 1998
-5-
not militate against the parties who are
competent to file a proper suit. It is for the
Court to consider the merits and demerits of
both the sides and decide the issue in that
case. Therefore this appeal is disposed of
holding that the present plaintiffs on the
strength of Ext.A1 are not entitled to institute
the suit and therefore the suit cannot be
entertained. Parties are at liberty to file a
fresh litigation, in accordance with law, where
all the matters can be considered by the Court
when it is a properly framed suit.
M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE.
ul/-
A.S. 334 OF 1998
-6-
M.N. KRISHNAN, J.
= = = = = = = = = =
A.S. No. 334 OF 1998
= = = = = = = = = = =
J U D G M E N T
5th July, 2010.