{"id":15608,"date":"2010-11-10T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-11-09T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/appukuttan-achari-vs-sree-mulamkadakam-devi-temple-on-10-november-2010"},"modified":"2019-01-10T07:33:15","modified_gmt":"2019-01-10T02:03:15","slug":"appukuttan-achari-vs-sree-mulamkadakam-devi-temple-on-10-november-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/appukuttan-achari-vs-sree-mulamkadakam-devi-temple-on-10-november-2010","title":{"rendered":"Appukuttan Achari vs Sree Mulamkadakam Devi Temple on 10 November, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Appukuttan Achari vs Sree Mulamkadakam Devi Temple on 10 November, 2010<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nFAO.No. 189 of 2010()\n\n\n1. APPUKUTTAN ACHARI,NADAYIL VADAKKATHIL,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. SREE MULAMKADAKAM DEVI TEMPLE\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n2. DR.MOHANRAJ,PRESIDENT,\n\n3. K.K.BABU,MEMBER,\n\n4. P.MADHAVAN,MEMBER,\n\n5. K.SIVADASAN,MEMBER,\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.K.KARTHIKEYA PANICKER\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.P.B.SURESH KUMAR\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice HARUN-UL-RASHID\n\n Dated :10\/11\/2010\n\n O R D E R\n                      HARUN-UL-RASHID, J.\n                        ------------------------\n                       F.A.O.No.189 Of 2010\n                        ----------------------\n           Dated this the 10th day of November, 2010.\n\n                           J U D G M E N T\n<\/pre>\n
      The appellant is the petitioner in I.A.No.1314\/2009 in<\/p>\n
O.S.No.97 of 1099 M.E on the file of the I Additional District<\/p>\n
Court, Kollam. The appeal is directed against the order dated<\/p>\n
14.6.2010 in the said I.A. The appeal is limited against the order<\/p>\n
to the extent it rejects the prayer sought for to remove<\/p>\n
respondents 2 to 5 and entrust the entire administration of the<\/p>\n
temple trust to the official receiver till a new committee assumes<\/p>\n
charge.\n<\/p>\n
      2.   The    matter    relates   to    administration  of  Sree<\/p>\n
Mulankadakam Devi Temple. The procedure for the conduct of<\/p>\n
the election to the office bearers of the temple trust is stipulated<\/p>\n
in Ext.P1 scheme. On an earlier occasion the Secretary of the<\/p>\n
Akhila Kerala Viswakarma Mahasabha, Kollam Taluk Union<\/p>\n
preferred W.P.(C).No.25195 of 2007 complaining about the<\/p>\n
conduct of the election held on 1.10.2006.         According to the<\/p>\n
petitioner, in the said writ petition the election held on 1.10.2006<\/p>\n
was not in accordance with the election procedure adopted in<\/p>\n
F.A.O.No.189 Of 2010<\/p>\n
                               ::2::\n<\/p>\n
Ext.P1 scheme, which was formulated by the District Court for<\/p>\n
the administration of the said temple. The grievance was that<\/p>\n
there was no proper publication of the voters’ list, that the voters’<\/p>\n
list does not contain the names of all the members, that the<\/p>\n
commissioner prepared a voters’ list on the basis of the names<\/p>\n
given by the then Bharana Samithy, that the election was<\/p>\n
conducted without verification of the personal identification of the<\/p>\n
voters, that there were large number of fake voters, that the<\/p>\n
procedure stipulated in Ext.P1 scheme are flouted by the<\/p>\n
commissioner, that proper publication was not done etc.         The<\/p>\n
petitioner   therein  filed  I.A.No.1414\/2006       on    6.10.2006<\/p>\n
challenging the election to the Sree Mulankadakam Devi Temple<\/p>\n
Trust and sought to cancel the same.\n<\/p>\n
      3.   The election was conducted on 1.10.2006. The period<\/p>\n
of managing committee is three years and by 30.9.2009 the<\/p>\n
period expired. This Court heard the writ petition on 18.3.2009.<\/p>\n
Finding that the period of the existing managing committee is<\/p>\n
about to expire, this Court observed that what remains is the<\/p>\n
administration for a period of few months and that in such<\/p>\n
circumstances, this Court is not examining the legality of the<\/p>\n
F.A.O.No.189 Of 2010<\/p>\n
                                ::3::\n<\/p>\n
order passed by the court below with regard to the points raised<\/p>\n
by the petitioners in the writ petition. This Court also observed<\/p>\n
that the approach made by the court below is wrong in passing<\/p>\n
the impugned order. This Court did not interfere with the order<\/p>\n
under challenge in the writ petition finding since the period of the<\/p>\n
present committee will be over on 30.9.2009 and therefore<\/p>\n
observed that no purpose will be served by remanding the matter<\/p>\n
to pass orders afresh.\n<\/p>\n
      4.   The appellant herein claiming to be a beneficiary filed<\/p>\n
I.A.No.1314 of 2009 praying to appoint a receiver to take charge<\/p>\n
of the administration and to remove respondents 2 to 5 from the<\/p>\n
office of the administrative committee of Sree Mulankadakam<\/p>\n
Devi Temple Trust and to entrust the administration of the<\/p>\n
Temple Trust to the receiver till a newly elected committee<\/p>\n
assumes charge in the office.       The court observed that even<\/p>\n
though the respondents have violated certain provisions in the<\/p>\n
scheme, at this stage, this Court is not inclined to entrust the<\/p>\n
entire administration with the receiver. The court held that at<\/p>\n
this stage, the court is not inclined to allow the prayer of the<\/p>\n
petitioner.  The court below further ordered that the present<\/p>\n
F.A.O.No.189 Of 2010<\/p>\n
                                 ::4::\n<\/p>\n
committee shall function under the supervision of the official<\/p>\n
receiver with regard to the maintenance of accounts as envisaged<\/p>\n
under clause 24 of the scheme, that the account maintained by<\/p>\n
the committee as per clause 24 shall be submitted before the<\/p>\n
receiver on the next day for verification, that the offering boxes<\/p>\n
shall be kept under lock and key of the receiver and that the<\/p>\n
receiver has to affix his seal on the lock and produce the key<\/p>\n
before the court.\n<\/p>\n
      5.   This Court disposed of W.P.(C).No.25195\/2007 by<\/p>\n
judgment dated 18.3.2009 without deciding the issues raised in<\/p>\n
the writ petition solely for the reason that the period of the<\/p>\n
managing committee is about to expire. This Court also in the<\/p>\n
said judgment observed that the approach of the court below in<\/p>\n
arriving at a decision in its order dated 18.1.2007 in I.A.No.1414<\/p>\n
of 2006 is not satisfactory.       This Court did not go into the<\/p>\n
questions under the hope that the election will be conducted<\/p>\n
within the expiry of the period of the committee. The period of<\/p>\n
the existing    committee expired on 30.9.2009.      Going by the<\/p>\n
relevant provisions of the bye law the existing committee shall<\/p>\n
initiate proceedings to conduct the election before the expiry of<\/p>\n
F.A.O.No.189 Of 2010<\/p>\n
                                  ::5::\n<\/p>\n
the committee. Finding that the present committee is continuing<\/p>\n
in the office without conducting the election at the appropriate<\/p>\n
time the present I.A. was moved by one of the beneficiaries. The<\/p>\n
court below considered the I.A on merits. But, at the same time<\/p>\n
the court refused to pass appropriate orders finding that the term<\/p>\n
of the committee is about to expire. What is expected in such<\/p>\n
situation is the conduct of the election at appropriate time.<\/p>\n
Election should have been held at the appropriate time and the<\/p>\n
new committee should have been assumed charge immediately<\/p>\n
on the expiry of the existing committee. Instead, for reasons not<\/p>\n
known to this Court, the conduct of the election is being dragged<\/p>\n
indefinitely. It is submitted by the counsel for the respondent<\/p>\n
that the returning officer was appointed to conduct the election<\/p>\n
by the court below.       The order dated 15.1.2010 to appoint a<\/p>\n
returning officer itself is a belated action. It is submitted by the<\/p>\n
counsel for the respondent that the returning officer called for the<\/p>\n
voters list on 22.1.2010 and he has submitted the draft voters<\/p>\n
list on 30.7.2010. It is also submitted that the final voters list<\/p>\n
was submitted on 9.10.2010 for approval of the court. The list is<\/p>\n
pending for approval.         Learned counsel for the appellant<\/p>\n
F.A.O.No.189 Of 2010<\/p>\n
                                 ::6::\n<\/p>\n
submitted that neither the draft voters list nor the final voters list<\/p>\n
was served on the appellant.\n<\/p>\n
      6.    In the circumstances, this Court direct the court below<\/p>\n
to approve the voters list and pass orders to conduct the election<\/p>\n
at the earliest date. The election shall be conducted, at any rate,<\/p>\n
not beyond four months from today. The approval of the voters<\/p>\n
list shall be done after giving opportunity to the appellant to file<\/p>\n
objections.   The approval shall be done after considering his<\/p>\n
objections and objections if any preferred by similarly situated<\/p>\n
persons and after hearing them. The court shall see that copies<\/p>\n
of the draft voters list and final voters list shall be served on the<\/p>\n
appellant. The court shall call for objections to the voters list<\/p>\n
from persons interested by publication in the newspapers having<\/p>\n
circulation   in   Kollam    and      Thiruvananthapuram      Taluks.<\/p>\n
Publication shall be ordered at the next posting date.<\/p>\n
      7.    The court below did not go into merits of the<\/p>\n
contentions raised by the petitioner for the reason that election<\/p>\n
will be conducted and the newly elected committee will take<\/p>\n
charge shortly. For the very same reason this Court also did not<\/p>\n
go into the contentions raised in the appeal. In the interest of<\/p>\n
F.A.O.No.189 Of 2010<\/p>\n
                                  ::7::\n<\/p>\n
justice, the only course open to the court is to expedite the<\/p>\n
conduct of the election. It is ordered that the existing committee<\/p>\n
shall function under the supervision of the official receiver not<\/p>\n
only with regard to the maintenance of accounts as per clause 24<\/p>\n
of the scheme as ordered by the I Additional District Court,<\/p>\n
Kollam in the order dated 19.3.2010 in I.A.No.318 of 2010 but<\/p>\n
the official receiver shall also supervise the other regular sources<\/p>\n
of income of the temple and the income received during festival<\/p>\n
days. The account maintained by the committee with regard to<\/p>\n
other sources of income received by the temple by way of<\/p>\n
donations, vazhipadu receipts, rent etc. shall be submitted before<\/p>\n
the receiver for verification weekly (every Saturday).       In that<\/p>\n
event the receiver shall submit weekly report to the court<\/p>\n
regarding the income received from the above mentioned<\/p>\n
sources.\n<\/p>\n
      With the above said directions the appeal is disposed of.<\/p>\n
                                               HARUN-UL-RASHID,
\n                                                      Judge.\n<\/p>\n
bkn\/-<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Appukuttan Achari vs Sree Mulamkadakam Devi Temple on 10 November, 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM FAO.No. 189 of 2010() 1. APPUKUTTAN ACHARI,NADAYIL VADAKKATHIL, … Petitioner Vs 1. SREE MULAMKADAKAM DEVI TEMPLE … Respondent 2. DR.MOHANRAJ,PRESIDENT, 3. K.K.BABU,MEMBER, 4. P.MADHAVAN,MEMBER, 5. K.SIVADASAN,MEMBER, For Petitioner :SRI.K.KARTHIKEYA PANICKER For Respondent :SRI.P.B.SURESH […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-15608","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nAppukuttan Achari vs Sree Mulamkadakam Devi Temple on 10 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/appukuttan-achari-vs-sree-mulamkadakam-devi-temple-on-10-november-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Appukuttan Achari vs Sree Mulamkadakam Devi Temple on 10 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/appukuttan-achari-vs-sree-mulamkadakam-devi-temple-on-10-november-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-11-09T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-01-10T02:03:15+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"7 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/appukuttan-achari-vs-sree-mulamkadakam-devi-temple-on-10-november-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/appukuttan-achari-vs-sree-mulamkadakam-devi-temple-on-10-november-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Appukuttan Achari vs Sree Mulamkadakam Devi Temple on 10 November, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-11-09T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-01-10T02:03:15+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/appukuttan-achari-vs-sree-mulamkadakam-devi-temple-on-10-november-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1391,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Kerala High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/appukuttan-achari-vs-sree-mulamkadakam-devi-temple-on-10-november-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/appukuttan-achari-vs-sree-mulamkadakam-devi-temple-on-10-november-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/appukuttan-achari-vs-sree-mulamkadakam-devi-temple-on-10-november-2010\",\"name\":\"Appukuttan Achari vs Sree Mulamkadakam Devi Temple on 10 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-11-09T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-01-10T02:03:15+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/appukuttan-achari-vs-sree-mulamkadakam-devi-temple-on-10-november-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/appukuttan-achari-vs-sree-mulamkadakam-devi-temple-on-10-november-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/appukuttan-achari-vs-sree-mulamkadakam-devi-temple-on-10-november-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Appukuttan Achari vs Sree Mulamkadakam Devi Temple on 10 November, 2010\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Appukuttan Achari vs Sree Mulamkadakam Devi Temple on 10 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/appukuttan-achari-vs-sree-mulamkadakam-devi-temple-on-10-november-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Appukuttan Achari vs Sree Mulamkadakam Devi Temple on 10 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/appukuttan-achari-vs-sree-mulamkadakam-devi-temple-on-10-november-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-11-09T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-01-10T02:03:15+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/appukuttan-achari-vs-sree-mulamkadakam-devi-temple-on-10-november-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/appukuttan-achari-vs-sree-mulamkadakam-devi-temple-on-10-november-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Appukuttan Achari vs Sree Mulamkadakam Devi Temple on 10 November, 2010","datePublished":"2010-11-09T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-01-10T02:03:15+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/appukuttan-achari-vs-sree-mulamkadakam-devi-temple-on-10-november-2010"},"wordCount":1391,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Kerala High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/appukuttan-achari-vs-sree-mulamkadakam-devi-temple-on-10-november-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/appukuttan-achari-vs-sree-mulamkadakam-devi-temple-on-10-november-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/appukuttan-achari-vs-sree-mulamkadakam-devi-temple-on-10-november-2010","name":"Appukuttan Achari vs Sree Mulamkadakam Devi Temple on 10 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-11-09T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-01-10T02:03:15+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/appukuttan-achari-vs-sree-mulamkadakam-devi-temple-on-10-november-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/appukuttan-achari-vs-sree-mulamkadakam-devi-temple-on-10-november-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/appukuttan-achari-vs-sree-mulamkadakam-devi-temple-on-10-november-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Appukuttan Achari vs Sree Mulamkadakam Devi Temple on 10 November, 2010"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/15608","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=15608"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/15608\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=15608"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=15608"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=15608"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}