Allowed

Raveendran v. Swamy Bhoomananda Theertha

Kerala HC7 Feb 2013OP(C)/1657/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This petition challenged orders dismissing applications for impleading a person appointed as Managing Trustee and amending the counter claim. The High Court allowed the petition, set aside the lower court orders, and directed impleadment and amendment to cure the omission of the new party to ensure binding adjudication.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders setting aside impleadment and amendment were quashed; applications were allowed; impleadment and amendment directed to be carried out.

Raveendran Vs Swamy Bhoomananda Theertha — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2013/18TH MAGHA 1934

¶5

OP(C).No. 1657 of 2012 (O)

¶6

IA NOS3353 & 3354/2006 IN OS NO.4/2003 OF I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, THRISSUR

¶7

PETITIONER(S):

¶8

RAVEENDRAN JOINT ORGANISING SECRETARY VISWA HINDU PARISHATH OFFICE, KALOOR, KOCHI-17

¶9

P.S.KASI VISWANATHAN VISWA HINDU PARISHATH SECRETARY SOUTH ZONE(RESIDING AT NALLEPPILLY , P.O.PALAKKAD)

¶10

B.K.BALARAMAN, PRARTHNA HOSUE, KASTHURBA LANE, KOORKKENCHERY THRISSUR

¶11

DR.P.RAMACHANDRAN, MARATH HOSUE, MARATH LANE, THRISSUR

¶12

G.MAHADEVAN, GANAPATHY AGRAHARAM, PUNKUNNAM, THRISSUR

¶13

KUMMANAM RAJASEKHARAN, ORGANISING SECRETARY, VISWA HINDU PARISHATH, KALOOR KOCHI-17

¶14

BY ADVS.SRI.P.B.KRISHNAN SMT.GEETHA P.MENON SRI.N.AJITH SRI.P.B.SUBRAMANYAN

¶15

RESPONDENT(S):

¶16

SWAMY BHOOMANANDA THEERTHA MANAGING TRUSTEE, NARAYANASHRAMA THAPOVAN PARALAM P.O., VENGINISSERY VILLAGE THRISSU TALUK - 680575

¶17

SWAMINI SANTHADEVI VICE PRESIDENT, HINDU NAVOTHANA PRATHISHTAN VYASA THAPOVANAM, P.O., VYASAGIRI WADAKKANCHERRY-680623

¶18

OP(C) NO.1657/2012

¶19

¶20

SWAMY VIRAJANANDA THEERTHA, JNANASHRAMAM P.O., VYASAGIRI, WADAKKANCHERRY - 680623.

¶21

SWAMY POORNANANDA PADAR, JNANASHRAMAM, VYASAGIRI, WADAKKANCHERRY - 680623.

¶22

R1 TO R4 BY ADV. SRI.P.SANTHOSH (PODUVAL) R1 TO R4 BY ADV. SMT.R.RAJITHA

¶23

THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07-02-2013,

¶24

THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶25

OP(C) NO.1657/2012

¶26

APPENDIX

¶27

PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS

¶28

EXT.P1:DTD 21/9/2006 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PART OF THE MINUTES BOOK

¶29

EXT.P2:DTD 20/11/2006, TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION, IA NO 3354 OF 2006 IN OS NO 4 OF 2003 IST ADDL DISTRICT COURT, THRISSUR

¶30

EXT.P3:DTD 28/3/2007, TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION TO IA NO 3354 OF 2006 IN OS NO 4 OF 2004 IST ADDL.DIST COURT, THRISSUR FILED BY THE RESPONDENT

¶31

EXT.P4:DTD 27/5/1961 , TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTERED TRUST DEED NO 993 OF 1961,S.R.O.WADAKKANCHERY

¶32

EXT.P5:DTD 20/3/2012. TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN IA NO 3354 OF 2006 IN OS NO 4 OF 2003 IST ADDL DISTRICT COURT, THRISSUR.

¶33

EXT.P6:DTD 20/3/2012. TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN IA NO 3353 OF 2006 IIN OS NO 4 OF 2003 IST ADDL DISTRICT COURT THRISSUR

¶34

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL

¶35

P.S. TO JUDGE

¶36

//TRUE COPY//

¶37

THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J.

¶38

==================================== O.P(C) No. 1657 of 2012 ====================================

¶39

Dated this the 07^th day of February, 2013

¶40

J U D G M E N T

¶41

Exhibits P5 and P6, orders dated 20.03.2012 on I.A.Nos.3354 and 3353 of 2006, respectively in O.S. No.4 of 2003 of the First Additional District Court, Thrissur are under challenge in this Original Petition at the instance of the defendants in that suit.

¶42

O.S. No.4 of 2003 is filed by the respondents and others under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, “the Code”) for various reliefs including a declaration that plaint A and B schedule items are Trust properties, to remove petitioners from Office of the Trusteeship, frame a scheme for the Trust and for other reliefs. Petitioners resisted the suit on various grounds and laid a counter claim for a declaration that clauses (7) to (9) of paragraph 3 of Ext.P4, Trust deed has come into force with the result that administration of the Trust including the right to elect the Managing Trustee has vested with the Trust Board, to frame rules for better management of the Trust, for a declaration that plaint A and B schedules are properties of the Trust and to remove the 4^th plaintiff from office of Managing Trustee.

¶43

O.P(C) No.1657 of 2012

¶44

-: 2 :-

¶45

Fourth plaintiff who was acting as the Managing Trustee on the date of institution of the suit expired on 16.08.2006. Petitioners say that in tune with the relevant clauses of Ext.P4, Trust deed, they approached plaintiffs 5 and 6 (who are not trustees of the Trust Board) to give their consent to appoint any one among them as Managing Trustee and as they declined, the Trust Board appointed Swami Prasanthananda Saraswathy as the Managing Trustee by Ext.P1, resolution of the Trust Board, dated 21.09.2006. Following that, petitioners filed Ext.P2, application (I.A. No.3354 of 2006) to implead the said Swami Prasanthananda Saraswathy as additional 7^th defendant in the suit and I.A. No.3353 of 2006 for consequential amendment of the counter claim. Applications were resisted by the respondents on various grounds including that appointment of Swami Prasanthananda Saraswathy as Managing Trustee is against provisions of the Trust deed and is therefore invalid. Learned Additional District Judge by the impugned orders dismissed the applications. Hence challenge to Exts.P5 and P6, orders.

¶46

Learned Senior Advocate has contended that by virtue of clause 7 of paragraph 3 of the Trust deed it was within the power of Trust Board to appoint a Managing Trustee in the

¶47

O.P(C) No.1657 of 2012

¶48

-: 3 :-

¶49

circumstances above stated and hence appointment of Swamy Prasanthananda Saraswathy is valid. It is contended that 4^th plaintiff who was acting as Managing Trustee of the Trust Board as on date of institution of the suit expired on 16.08.2006, it happened that the Trust Board did not have a Managing Trustee and presence of Managing Trustee is necessary for the day to day administration of the Trust. Hence the Trust Board decided to appoint a Managing Trustee as aforesaid. It is contended that in view of the subsequent event, Swami Prasanthananda Saraswathy is to be impleaded as additional 7^th defendant and counter claim is required to be amended suitably.

¶50

Learned counsel for the respondents contended that as per clauses 7 to 9 of paragraph 3 of the Ext.P4, Trust deed, appointment of Swami Prasanthananda Saraswathy is invalid. Their claim is that Swami Purushomatha Thirtha, 2^nd plaintiff in the suit was appointed as Managing Trustee of the Trust Board as per Will dated 01.07.2007. It is contended that if Swami Prasanthananda Saraswathy claiming to be appointed as Managing Trustee by the petitioners is impleaded, that would amount to giving judicial acceptance to the illegality committed by the petitioners. Further argument is that since the respondents

¶51

O.P(C) No.1657 of 2012

¶52

-: 4 :-

¶53

are masters of the suit, they have the prime say as to who should be the defendants. In the circumstances Exts.P5 and P6 orders do not require reconsideration, it is argued.

¶54

No doubt, going by Rule 10(2) of Order I of the Code and as the various decisions on the point would say, plaintiff has the main say in the matter of impleadment of parties to the suit. But it is not as if the last word in the matter is of the plaintiff. Either suo motu, or on the request of the defendants it is within the power of court to implead necessary or even proper parties to the suit if such impleadment is necessary for an effective and proper adjudication of the dispute involved. That is because attempt of the court must be to decide the controversy once and for ever and that decision shall be binding on all concerned. No court shall decide a matter saying that the decision may not be binding on somebody who is not made party to the suit. Therefore I am not impressed by the contention that because respondents are not interested, request for impledment ought to have been disallowed by the learned Additional District Judge.

¶55

So far as validity of election of Swami Prasanthananda Saraswathy as Managing Trustee of the Trust Board is concerned,

¶56

O.P(C) No.1657 of 2012

¶57

-: 5 :-

¶58

much was argued by both sides. But it is not necessary for me to pronounce verdict on that question in this proceeding. Validity of election of Swami Prasanthananda as Managing Trustee has to depend on the relevant clauses of Ext.P4, Trust deed and has to be ultimately decided by the learned Additional District Judge. Nor am I by the decision I propose to take, giving judicial acceptance to the appointment of the person sought to be impleaded as Managing Trustee. Question whether he could act as Managing Trustee are all matters which learned Additional District Judge has to decide if a motion to that effect is made before him.

¶59

Now that though on account of a subsequent event a person is claimed to be appointed as Managing Trustee of the Trust, it is only appropriate he is brought on record so that with him on record, trial court can decide the controversy binding the person sought to be impleaded as well. In that view of the matter I am inclined to think that request for impleadment ought to have been allowed.

¶60

If respondents have a contention that appointment of Swami Prasanthananda Saraswathy is illegal being against provisions of the Trust deed and hence he is not entitled to act as

¶61

O.P(C) No.1657 of 2012

¶62

-: 6 :-

¶63

such, it is open to the respondents either to seek amendment of plaint incorporating necessary pleas and even seek appropriate reliefs consequent to the impleadment of Swami Prasanthananda Saraswathy as additional 7^th defendant or seek amendment of their replication to the counter claim as circumstances warranted and as law provides.

¶64

Learned counsel for respondents contended that now, affairs of the Trust is being mismanaged by the petitioners and the person claiming to be elected as Managing Trustee. It is submitted that respondents intend to move an application in that regard before the learned District Judge.

¶65

The above assertion of learned counsel for respondents is disputed with equal vehemence by the learned Senior Advocate for petitioners. I leave that matter also for decision by the appropriate court at the appropriate stage.

¶66

Having regard to the above I am inclined to think that impleadment sought for and the consequential amendment to the counter claim ought to have been allowed. Exhibits P5 and P6, orders are liable to be set aside.

¶67

Resultantly, the Original Petition is allowed as under:

¶68

O.P(C) No.1657 of 2012

¶69

-: 7 :-

¶70

(i) Exhibits P5 and P6, orders on I.A. No.3354 and 3353 of 2006 in O.S. No.4 of 2003 are set aside.

¶71

(ii) I.A. Nos.3353 and 3354 of 2006 will stand allowed.

¶72

(iii) Office of the learned District Judge shall carry out impleadment in the cause title as prayed for in the applications.

¶73

(iv) Petitioners shall carry out amendment as prayed for in I.A. No.3353 of 2006 within fourteen days from this day.

¶74

It is made clear that it is open to the respondent to seek appropriate amendment to the plaint and seek other appropriate reliefs or either file additional replication to the amended counter claim or seek amendment of the replication already filed as circumstances provided and as law requires consequent to the impledment and amendment permitted hereby.

¶75

THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE.

¶76

vsv

Raveendran v. Swamy Bhoomananda Theertha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raveendran v. Swamy Bhoomananda Theertha

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

Ramadas Vs Damodara Panicker

S.Kamala Devi Vs Kumari Valsala

Dina Mon Vs Maniyan

Sankaran Nair Vs N.Chandrasekharan Nair

Vaheedabhanu Vs v.Ganesh

K.V. Kunhambu Vs the Secretary, Kanhangad Municipality