Disposed

Orippurathu Devi Temple v. K.Thulaseedharan Nair

Kerala HC18 Feb 2016OP(C)/232/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside the District Judge's injunction granting priority for a family's offering. It directed that processions go to houses in order of proximity until the underlying civil suit determines custom rights. Subject matter involves temple administration and property rights.

What did the court decide?

Impugned judgment set aside; procession to proceed to houses in order of proximity until suit disposal.

Orippurathu Devi Temple Vs K.Thulaseedharan Nair — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.ABRAHAM MATHEW

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2016/29TH MAGHA, 1937

¶5

OP(C).No. 232 of 2016 (O)

¶6

CMA 31/2014 of PRINCIPAL DISTRICT COURT,PATHANAMTHITTA IA 275/2014 IN 51/2014 OF MUNSIFF'S COURT, ADOOR

¶7

PETITIONERS :

¶8

-------------------

¶9

1. ORIPPURATHU DEVI TEMPLE, THATTAYIL MANAGING COMMITTEE REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT, DEVASWOM OFFICE PARAKKARA.P.O., THATTAYIL, ADOOR TALUK PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.

¶10

2. R.SUDARSANA PILLAI, AGED 42 YEARS, SON OF RAGHAVAN NAIR, DEVI VILASAM, KEERUVAZHI.P.O. PATHANAMTHITTA (PRESENT PRESIDENT OF ORIPPURATHU DEVI TEMPLE THATTAYIL MANAGING COMMITTEE)

¶11

3. B. SANTHOSH KUMAR, AGED 40 YEARS, SON OF BHASKARAN NAIR, ASWATHY BHAVAN, PADUKKOTTAKAL THATTAYIL PATHANAMTHITTA (PRESENT SECRETARY OF ORIPPURTHU DEVI TEMPLE, THATTAYIL MANAGING COMMITTEE).

¶12

BY ADVS.SRI.S.VINOD BHAT SRI.G.UNNIKRISHNAN SRI.LEGITH T.KOTTAKKAL

¶13

RESPONDENTS :

¶14

-----------------------

¶15

1. K.THULASEEDHARAN NAIR,, AGED 46 YEARS S/O.KUTTAPPAN NAIR, RESIDING AT MELETHU HOUSE, EDAMALI PARAKKARA.P.O., THATTAYIL, ADOOR TALUK PIN - 691 525.

¶16

2. K.JAYAPRAKASH, AGED 44 YEARS S/O.KUTTAPPAN NAIR, RESIDING AT MELETHU HOUSE, EDAMALI PARAKKARA.P.O., THATTAYIL, ADOOR TALUK PIN - 691 525.

¶17

OP(C).No. 232 of 2016 (O)

¶18

3. P.K. NARAYANA KURUP, AGED 75 YEARS, S/O.KUNCHU KARANAVAR, RESIDING AT SREERANGAM HOUSE, EDAMALI, PARAKKARA.P.O., ADOOR TALUK PIN - 691 525.

¶19

R1 TO R3 BY SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN SENIOR ADVOCATE BY ADV. SRI.S.SUJIN

¶20

THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/1/2016, THE COURT ON 18-02-2016 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

¶22

OP(C).No. 232 of 2016 (O)

¶23

APPENDIX

¶24

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶25

EXT.P1: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 30-06-2010 IN O.S.132/1997 OF THE SUB COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA.

¶26

EXT.P2: COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S.485/2013 OF MUNSIFF'S COURT, ADOOR. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE PETITION I.A.2872/2013 IN O.S.485/2013 OF MUNSIFF'S COURT, ADOOR.

¶27

EXT.P4: COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT IN I.A.2872/2013 IN O.S.485/2013 OF MUNSIFF'S COURT, ADOOR.

¶28

EXT.P5: COPY OF THE PLAINT O.S.51/2014 OF MUNSIFF'S COURT, ADOOR. EXT.P6: COPY OF THE PETITION I.A.275/2014 IN O.S.51/2014 OF MUNSIFF'S COURT, ADOOR.

¶29

EXT.P7: COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT IN I.A.275/2014 IN O.S.51/2014 OF MUNSIFF'S COURT, ADOOR.

¶30

EXT.P8: COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 7/2/2014 IN I.A.275/2014 IN O.S.51/2014 OF MUNSIFF'S COURT, ADOOR.

¶31

EXT.P9: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 8/1/2016 IN C.M.A.31/2014 OF DISTRICT COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA.

¶32

EXT.P10: COPY OF THE PETITION I.A.2317/2014 IN O.S.51/2014 OF MUNSIFF'S COURT,A DOOR.

¶33

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS :

¶34

EXT.R1(A):	COPY OF THE RECEIPT DT 13/2/1988.
EXT.R1(B):	COPY OF THE RECEIPT DT 2/2/1999.
EXT.R1(C):	COPY OF THE RECEIPT DT 13/2/2000 & 6/2/2001.
EXT.R1(D):	COPY OF THE RECEIPT DT 6/2/2001 & 21/2/2002
EXT.R1(E):	COPY OF THE RECEIPT DT 14/2/2003 & 6/2/2004.
EXT.R1(F):	COPY OF THE RECEIPT DT 7/2/2006, 29/1/2008 & 6/2/2009
EXT.R1(G):	COPY OF THE RECEIPT DT 26/1/2010 & 15/2/2011.
EXT.R1(H):	COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH SHOWING THE OFFERING BY THE RESPONDENTS' FAMILY TO THE 1ST PETITIONER TEMPLE.

¶35

OP(C).NO. 232 OF 2016 (O)

¶36

EXT.R1(I):	COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH SHOWING THE OFFERING BY THE RESPONDENTS' FAMILY TO THE 1ST PETITIONER TEMPLE.
EXT.R1(J):	COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH SHOWING THE OFFERING BY THE RESPONDENTS' FAMILY TO THE 1ST PETITIONER TEMPLE.
EXT.R1(K):	COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH SHOWING THE OFFERING BY THE RESPONDENTS' FAMILY TO THE 1ST PETITIONER TEMPLE.
EXT.R1(I):	COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH SHOWING THE OFFERING BY THE RESPONDENTS' FAMILY TO THE 1ST PETITIONER TEMPLE.
EXT.R1(M):	COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE TEMPLE ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE HELD ON 21/1/2012.
EXT.R1(N):	COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS IN OS NO.132/97.
EXT.R1(O):	COPY OF THE APPLICATIONS FILED FOR ADVANCEMENT OF THE CASE FOR FACILITATING THE MAKARA BHARANI IN THE 1ST PETITIONER TEMPLE.
EXT.R1(P):	COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE PRESENT PETITIONERS IN C.M.A. BEFORE THE DISTRICT COURT.
EXT.R1(Q):	COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS IN O.S. 51/2014.
EXT.R1(R):	COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT FILED IN OS 485/2013.

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE

K.ABRAHAM MATHEW, J.

¶41

O.P.(C) No.232 of 2016

¶42

Dated this the 18^th day of February, 2016

¶43

JUDGMENT

¶44

Petitioners are the defendants and respondents are the plaintiffs in O.S.No.51 of 2014 of Munsiff Court, Adoor. The 1^st petitioner is a temple. The respondents are members of Melethu family, which situated very close to the temple. Every year in connection with the festival of the temple a procession would be taken which is called 'para ezhunallathu'. During the procession the families in the locality make offerings to the deity of the temple. It is alleged by the respondents in the plaint that their predecessors made certain contributions to the temple and their family has every right to make the first offering, which is called 'kanni para'. This practice has been followed for several years and it has become a custom. It is further alleged in the plaint that the petitioners want to put an end to the custom by taking a different route for the procession. Along with the plaint, the respondents filed an application under Order 39 Rule 1 C.P.C for a temporary injunction restraining the petitioners from deviating from the custom. In their objection the petitioners denied the custom. They would say that the first offering was made by the respondents only because their the first property outside the property of

¶45

O.P.(C) No.232 of 2016 2

¶46

the temple. The trial court dismissed the application. By the impugned judgment, the learned District Judge has set aside the order and allowed the temporary prohibitory injunction. This is challenged.

¶47

Heard.

¶48

The respondents rely on certain documents in support of their claim. They are receipts issued to them for the offerings made to the deity. But they will not show that there was a custom as pleaded by them. In fact, there is no documentary evidence to prove the custom. The decision in the case depends on oral evidence alone. This is the reason why the learned Munsiff came to the conclusion that the respondents have no prima facie case. The learned District Judge was wrong in acting upon the materials produced by the respondents which actually are not sufficient to prove the custom pleaded by the respondents.

¶49

As the decisions on the issues depend on the oral evidence, as of now the court cannot come to the conclusion that the respondents have a right to make the first offering. At the same time, if at the trial it is proved that there has been a custom by which the respondents are entitled to make the first offering, denying them that right now will result

¶50

O.P.(C) No.232 of 2016 3

¶51

in miscarriage of justice. So I am inclined to direct the petitioners to

¶52

take out the procession first to the first house and next to the houses in their order. This will not confer any right on the respondents. This will be irrelevant for the decision of the issues in the case.

¶53

In the result, this O.P is disposed of as follows: The impugned judgment is set aside. If a procession is taken out by the first petitioner temple outside the properties which form part of its premises, it shall go to the houses in the order in which they are situated, which shall continue till the disposal of the suit.

¶54

K.ABRAHAM MATHEW JUDGE

¶55

Orippurathu Devi Temple v. K.Thulaseedharan Nair

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Orippurathu Devi Temple v. K.Thulaseedharan Nair

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Koya Vs Basheer Ahammed

Joseph Joseph Vs Lukose Sacaria

Ajayasankar O.M Vs Kuttirishnan Ezhuthassan

V.K.Venu Vs Rajan

The Executive Officer Vs Kizhuveettil Goapalakrishnan Nair

Sajin Lal S.P. Vs South Kerala Diocese