Allowed

Sree Narayanan Dharma Paripalana Yogam v. Chirutha Panickathu Lekshmi and Others

Kerala HC14 Sept 2012CRP/677/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court disposed of a civil revision petition challenging an order identifying ten persons eligible for temple administration. The court upheld the lower court's finding on eligibility but directed the petitioner to specify the number of representatives from the identified families.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner is permitted to specify the number of family members from the ten identified to be included in the system of administration, to be done within one month.

Sree Narayanan Dharma Paripalana Yogam Vs Chirutha… — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.CHITAMBARESH

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2012/23RD BHADRA 1934

¶5

CRP.No. 677 of 2008 ( )

¶6

OS.381/2000 of ADDL.MUNSIFF COURT, ALAPPUZHA

¶7

REVISION PETITIONER(S)/IST JUDGEMENT DEBTOR/IST DEFENDANT:

¶8

SREE NARAYANA DHARMA PARIPALANA YOGAM, BRANCH NO.796, KAROOR, PURACKAD REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, V.VINOD S/O.VISWANATHAN, AGED.35 YEARS, SECRETARY BRANCH NO.796, KAROOR, PURACKAD.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.K.S.HARIHARAPUTHRAN SRI.GEORGE MATHEW

¶10

RESPONDENT(S)/DECREE HOLDERS/PLAINTIFFS 1,2,3,5 & 6:

¶11

1. CHIRUTHA PANICKATHY LEKSHMI, MATHUPARAMBIL, VADACKAL, ALAPPUZHA.

¶12

2. VIJAYAN @ PONNAN, MATHUPARAMBIL, VADACKAL, ALAPPUZHA.

¶13

3. PUSHPAN, MATHUPARAMBIL, VADACKAL, ALAPPUZHA.

¶14

4. ANILKUMAR, MATHUPARAMBIL, VADACKAL, ALAPPUZHA.

¶15

5. AJITHA, MATHUPARAMBIL, VADACKAL, ALAPPUZHA.

¶16

BY ADV. SRI.T.N.MAURICE VINCENT

¶17

THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14-092012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

V.CHITAMBARESH,J.

¶19

= = = = = = = = = = =

¶20

C.R.P No.677 of 2008

¶21

= = = = = = = = = = = == = = = = Dated this the 14^th day of September, 2012

¶22

O R D E R

¶23

The suit is one for a decree of declaration that the registered agreement No.182 dated 14-12-1989 of S.R.O, Ambalapuzha is invalid and not binding on the plaintiffs. There is also a prayer for a decree of perpectual injunction restraining the first defendant Sakha Yogam and persons claiming under it from interfering with the administration and management of Payalkulangara Devi Temple, Purackad. The suit was eventually decreed on the basis of compromise dated 29-11-2002 entered into between the parties . The compromise decree inter alia provided for the constitution of the administrative committee of Payalkulangara Devaswom as per the terms of the agreement afrorestated executed for its governance.

¶24

The compromise decree also enabled the second plaintiff /second decree holder to give a list of family members to the first defendant in the event of the failure of the ' karanavan ' to give such list within a period of 30 days therefrom. Needless to say

¶25

C.R.P No.677 of 2008

¶26

¶27

that the compromise decree imposes mutual obligations on the second plaintiff and the first defendant as regards the performance of certain acts for the system of administration (Bharana Kramam) of the Devaswom to be formulated .

¶28

The decree holders thereafter levied execution whereupon the execution court directed the second plaintiff to furnish a list of family members as per the terms of the decree which is seen done. The first judgment debtor was certainly put on notice about the list of family members produced in execution and it can safely be concluded that obligations on the part of the decree holder have been complied with. The first judgment debtor however disputed the status of some of the members included in the list contending that they are not members of the 'Mootheri Family' who alone can participate in the system of administration.

¶29

That this was the only objection of the first judgment debtor is also evident from the order dated 15-2-2008 in C.R.P No.125/2008 filed against an earlier order passed in execution. This Court directed the execution court to afford opportunity to both the parties to establish the identity of the members included in the list furnished by the decree holders.

¶30

C.R.P No.677 of 2008 3

¶31

The court below has by the order impugned held that all the ten persons included in the list filed by the decree holders belonged to the 'Mootheri Family' only and eligible to participate in the system of administration of Payalkulangara Devaswom . The court below has examined as many as seven witnesses and relied on documentary evidence also to come to the conclusion about the status and identity of the members included in the list. I do not find any infirmity in the order impugned as to warrant interference under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

¶32

It however remains to be stated that the number of persons to be included in the joint committee for formulating the system of administration is to be decided by the first judgment debtor. I say so since neither the compromise decree nor the basic agreement dated 14-12-1989 specifies the number of members to be included in the system of administration to be formulated. I permit the first judgment debtor /petitioner to specify the number of family members from out of the ten already identified to be included in the system of administration. The same shall be done within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment failing which the court below is entitled to specify the number and complete the

¶33

C.R.P No.677 of 2008

¶34

¶35

formation of the system of administration (Bharana kramam). All the ten family members shall be duly intimated by the court below about the decision taken by first judgment debtor and the number shall not be less than four. The court below shall record full satisfaction of the decree after the exercise as directed above is completed.

¶36

The Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. No costs.

¶37

V.CHITAMBARESH. JUDGE

¶38

smm

¶39

C.R.P No.677 of 2008 5

Sree Narayanan Dharma Paripalana Yogam v. Chirutha Panickathu Lekshmi and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sree Narayanan Dharma Paripalana Yogam v. Chirutha Panickathu Lekshmi and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vijaya Rajan Pillai Vs Parukutty Amma & 4 Ors.

Molikutty George Vs State of Kerala

Susamma Babu Vs Gracy Soman

Kanthalloor Grama Panchayat Vs M/S.Kodoor Engineers

Babu Poojary Vs Subba Poojary

Vilson Vs Babu