Dismissed

Kedanji Sri Mahavishnu Kshetra Seva Samithi v. Jeernodhara Samathi

Kerala HC11 Nov 2016OP(C)/2838/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala dismissed a writ petition challenging a lower court order related to the election for the management of a temple. While noting that the election was imminent, the court held it was not proper to stall the process at this stage.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed in limine; liberty granted to petitioner to challenge election irregularities.

Kedanji Sri Mahavishnu Kshetra Seva Samithi Vs Jeernodhara… — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAMAKRISHNAN

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2016/20TH KARTHIKA, 1938

¶5

OP(C).No. 2838 of 2016

¶6

-----------------------------------O.S.NO. 1 OF 2009 OF THE DISTRICT COURT, KASARAGOD

¶7

PETITIONER(S) :

¶8

KEDENJI SRI MAHAVISHNU KSHETRA SEVA SAMITHI, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT, SRI.VASANTHA PAI, AGED 59 YEARS, MERCHANT, BADIADKA, KASARAGOD TALUK, P.O.PERDALA, KASARGOD- 671 551.

¶9

SATHISH SHETTY, AGED 49 YEARS, SECRETARY OF SRI MAHAVISHNU KSHETRA SEVA SAMITHI KEDENJI, RESIDING AT DEYYANDRE HOUSE, BADIADKA VILLAGE, KASARGOD TALUK, P.O.UKKINADKA, KASARGOD- 671 552.

¶10

UMESH RAI, AGED 37 YEARS, TREASURER OF SRI.MAHAVISHNU KSHETHRA SEVA SAMITHI KEDENJI, S/O.RAMANATHA RAI, KASARGOD DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK BADIADKA EVENING BRANCH, P.O.PERDALA, KASARGOD- 671 551.

¶11

THIRUPATHIKUMAR BHAT, AGED 57 YEARS, VICE PRESIDENT OF SRI MAHAVISHNU KSHETRA SEVA SAMITHI KEDENJI, PERUMUKHA HOUSE, NEERCHAL VILLAGE, KASARGOD TALUK, P.O.PERDALA, KASARGOD- 671 551.

¶12

RAMA MASTER PILANKATTE, AGED 70 YEARS, JOINT SECRETARY OF SRI.MAHAVISHNU KSHETHRA SEVA SAMITHA KEDENJI, BADIADKA TALUK, P.O.PERDALA, KASARGOD- 671 551.

¶13

ANANDA B., AGED 60 YEARS, JOINT SECRETARY OF SRI MAHAVISHNU KSHETRA SEVA SAMITHI KEDENJI, BADIADKA HOUSE, NEERCHAL VILLAGE, KASARGOD TALUK, P.O.PERDALA, KASARGOD - 671 551.

¶14

B.VASANTHA PAI, S/O.ACHUTHA PAI, MERCHANT, RESIDING AT BADIADKA, KASARGOD TALUK, P.O.PERDALA, KASARGOD - 671 551.

¶15

BY ADV. SRI.R.S.KALKURA

¶16

..2/-

¶17

..2..

¶18

OP(C).No. 2838 of 2016

¶19

RESPONDENT(S) :

¶20

1. JEERNODHARA SAMITHI OF SRI. KEDENJI SRI.MAHAVISHNU KSHETHRAM, SRI.T.RAMESH, AGED 59 YEARS, S/O.LATE KARUNAKARAN NAMBIAR, RESIDING AT PAYYANNUR, CORRESPONDENT IN BADIADKA, BADIADKA VILLAGE, KASARGOD TALUK, P.O.PERDALA, KASARGOD 671 551.

¶21

2. P.RAMA, AGED 66 YEARS, S/O.LATE APPU, RESIDING AT IKKERI HOUSE, BADIADKA VILLAGE, KASARGOD TALUK, P.O.PERDALA, KASARGOD 671 551.

¶22

3. RAMESH ALVA, AGED 35 YEARS, S/O.BABU ALVA, RESIDING AT KDARU HOUSE, BADIADKA VILLAGE, KASARGOD TALUK, P.O.PERDALA, KASARGOD 671 551.

¶23

4. SRI.VISHNUPRIYA BAHAJANA SANGHA REPRESENTED BY THE 1ST PLAINTIFF, T.RAMESHAN, S/O.LATE KARUNAKARAN NAMBIAR, RESIDING AT PAYYANNOOR, CORRESPONDENT IN BADIADKA, BADIADKA VILLAGE, KASARGOD TALUK, P.O.PERDALA, KASARGOD 671 551.

¶24

5. N.SUBBA RAO, AGED 84 YEARS, S/O.RAMAPPAYYA, RESIDING AT NELLIKUNJE HOUSE, BADIADKA VILLAGE OF KASARGOD TALUK, P.O.UKKINADKA, KASARGOD 671 552.

¶25

6. BHASKARA RAO KEDENJI, AGED 67 YEARS, S/O.GOPALAKRISHNAYYA, RETIRED TAHSILDAR, RESIDING AT SINDURA HOUSE, HOUSANGADI, MANJESHWAR VILLAGE, KASARGOD TALUK, P.O.MANJESHWAR, KASARGOD 671 323.

¶26

7. N.RAJASEKHARA RAO, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, S/O.N.VISHNU RAO, NELLIKUNJE HOUSE, BADIADKA VILLAGE, KASARGOD TALUK, P.O.UKKINADKA, KASARGOD 671 552.

¶27

8. RAMAKRISHNA.P, ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER, VIDYANAGAR P.O., KASARGOD 671 123.

¶28

THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11-11-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶29

Msd.

¶30

OP(C).No. 2838 of 2016

¶31

APPENDIX

¶32

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS :

¶33

EXT.P1	TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 16/08/2016 IN O.S.NO. 1 OF 2009 ON THE FILE OF THE DISTRICT JUDGE, KASARGOD.
EXT.P2	TRUE COPY OF THE DECREE DATED 16/08/2016 IN O.S.NO. 1 OF 2009 ON THE FILE OF THE DISTRICT JUDGE, KASARGOD.
EXT.P3	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 20/10/2016 PASSED IN R.F.A NO. 633/2016 ON THE FILE OF HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA.
EXT.P4	TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO DATED 25/10/2016 ALONG WITH THE LIST OF MEMBERS SUBMITTED BY THE COMMISSIONER APPOINTED BY THE DISTRICT COURT, KASARGOD IN O.S.NO. 1 OF 2009.
EXT.P5	TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 25/10/2016 PUBLISHED BY THE 8TH RESPONDENT COMMISSIONER IN CARVEL KANNADA EVENING PAPER PUBLISHED ON 27/10/2016.
EXT.P6	TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO DATED 24/10/2016 SUBMITTED BY THE COMMISSIONER BEFORE THE DISTRICT COURT, KASARGOD IN O.S.NO. 1 OF 2009 SEEKING COPY OF EXHIBIT A12 FOR PREPARATION OF THE VOTERS LIST.
EXT.P7	TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE OF GENERAL BODY MEETING ISSUED BY THE COMMISSIONER DATED 25/10/2016.
EXT.P8	TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO DATED 25/10/2016 FOR DIRECTIONS AND ORDER ALONG WITH LIST OF MEMBERS BEFORE THE DISTRICT COURT, KASARGOD IN O.S.NO. 1 OF 2009.
EXT.P9	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 25/10/2016 PASSED BY THE DISTRICT COURT, KASARGOD IN O.S.NO. 1 OF 2009 ON THE FILE OF THE DISTRICT JUDGE, KASARGOD.
EXT.P10	TRUE COPY OF THE REVIEW PETITION DATED 03/11/2016 IN R.P. NO.541/2016 BEFORE THE DISTRICT JUDGE, KASARGOD IN O.S.NO. 1/2009.
EXT.P11	TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS 1 TO 4 TO THE R.P.NO.541/2016 BEFORE THE DISTRICT JUDGE, KASARGOD IN O.S.NO. 1/2009.
EXT.P12	TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE VOTERS LIST BEFORE THE 8TH RESPONDENT COMMISSIONER DATED 31/10/2016.

¶34

OP(C).No. 2838 of 2016

¶35

EXT.P13 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 08/10/2016 IN R.P NO.541/2016 BEFORE THE DISTRICT JUDGE, KASARGOD IN O.S.NO. 1/2009.

¶36

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS :

NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.A.TO JUDGE.

Msd.

K.RAMAKRISHNAN, J.

¶42

O.P.(C) No.2838 of 2016

¶43

Dated this the 11^th day of November, 2016

¶44

JUDGMENT

¶45

This petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging Ext.P13 order passed by the court below under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

¶46

It is alleged in the petition that the respondents filed a suit as O.S.1/2009 before the District Court, Kasaragod for declaration in respect of the first plaintiff 'samithy', is the person entitled to manage the affairs of Kedenji Sree Mahavishnu Kshethram and consequential reliefs. As per Ext.P1 judgment, a scheme was framed for management of that temple followed by Ext.P2 decree and that was challenged by the petitioners by filing R.F.A.633/2016 before this court and obtained Ext.P3 stay order, where it has been stated that, there shall be an interim order that, the result of the election to be held as directed by the lower court shall be published only after obtaining permission from this court. Thereafter on the basis of Ext.P1 judgment, a commissioner was appointed to conduct the election. That commissioner filed Ext.P4 memo showing the list of members, Ext.P5 copy of the notice and Ext.P5 memo, seeking permission for preparation of voters list, Ext.P7 notice of general body issued by the commissioner and Ext.P8 memo, seeking direction for conduct the

¶47

O.P.(C) No.2838 of 2016

¶48

¶49

election etc., on the basis of the steps taken by him. The court below passed Ext.P9 order allowing the request made by the commissioner and thereafter he filed Ext.P10 review petition as R.P.541/2016 and the respondents 1 to 4 filed Ext.P11 objection and the petitioner filed Ext.P12 objection to the voters list prepared by the commissioner, the court below without considering those things passed Ext.P13 order which is being challenged by the petitioner.

¶50

Heard Sri.R.S.Kalkura, counsel appearing for the petitioner.

¶51

The counsel for the petitioner submitted that, the court below has not considered anything, the court below proceeded on the basis that election process has been started. The counsel also submitted that, on the basis of the earlier notice a general body was convened and the election is going to be conducted on today.

¶52

Considering the fact that general body has already been convened on the basis of the permission given by the court and the election is going to be conducted today, this court feels that it is not proper at this stage to stall the election process. The petitioner is at liberty to challenge the election on the ground of all irregularities on the basis of the contentions raised by him before the court below as well while challenging the election.

¶53

With the above liberty the petition is dismissed in limine.

¶54

O.P.(C) No.2838 of 2016

¶55

¶56

Registry is directed to communicate this judgment to the court

¶57

below at the earliest.

¶58

Sd/-

¶59

(K. Ramakrishnan, Judge)

¶60

//True Copy//

¶61

P.A. to Judge

¶62

Kedanji Sri Mahavishnu Kshetra Seva Samithi v. Jeernodhara Samathi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kedanji Sri Mahavishnu Kshetra Seva Samithi v. Jeernodhara Samathi

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

Soorya Narayanan Vs D.Krishnankutty

Sadasivan Pillai Vs Church of South India Trust Association

Patel Real Estate Developers Pvt. Ltd. Vs P.K.Kuriakose

Remya R. Vs Suji Kumar S.

Shaji Varkey Vs Travancore Cements Employees Co-Operative Bank

Neethu Joseph Vs G. Thomas