Dismissed

Kannannoor Devi Temple, Chennithala v. Sasikumar

Kerala HC7 Jan 2016RP/165/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A review petition filed by temple representatives challenging the second appeal decision in an injunction suit concerning the return of temple movables. The High Court found no scope for misinterpretation of the previous judgment and dismissed the petition as devoid of merits.

What did the court decide?

Review petition dismissed. No clarification order passed beyond the second appeal judgment.

Kannannoor Devi Temple, Chennithala Vs Sasikumar — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF JANUARY 2016/17TH POUSHA, 1937

¶5

RP.No. 165 of 2012 ()

¶6

-------------------------------(AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN RSA.NO. 28/2011 DATED 03-08-2011)

¶7

REVIEW PETITIONER(S)/RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3:

¶8

1. KANNANNOOR DEVI TEMPLE, CHENNITHALA THEKKUM MURI, CHENNITHALA P.O., THRIPPERUMTHURA VILLAGE, MAVELIKKARA TALUK, REP. BY ITS PRESIDENT, P.GOPINATHAN NAIR, DEVISADANAM, CHENNITHALA SOUTH P.O., THRIPPERUMTHURA.

¶9

2. P.GOPINATHAN NAIR, DEVISADANAM, CHENNITHALA SOUTH P.O.,

¶10

THRIPPERUMTHURA.

¶11

3. N.SANKARANKUTTY NAIR, RADHALAYAM HOUSE, PUTHEN KOTTAKKAKOM MURI, CHENNITHALA P.O., CHENNITHALA VILLAGE.

¶12

BY ADV. SRI.A.R.DILEEP

¶13

RESPONDENT(S)/APPELLANT & RESPONDENTS 4 TO 13 :

¶14

1. SASIKUMAR, KANNANNOOR HOUSE, CHENNITHALA SOUTH MURI, THRIPPERUMTHURA VILLAGE- 690 105.

¶15

*2. NANUKUTTY AMMA, KANNANNOOR HOUSE, CHENNITHALA SOUTH MURI, THRIPPERUMTHURA VILLAGE-690 105. (DELETED)

¶16

*3. VIJAYAKUMAR,

¶17

KANNANNOOR HOUSE, CHENNITHALA SOUTH MURI, THRIPPERUMTHURA VILLAGE-690 105. (DELETED)

¶18

*4. SUSHAMA,

¶19

KANNANNOOR HOUSE, CHENNITHALA SOUTH MURI, THRIPPERUMTHURA VILLAGE-690 105. (DELETED)

¶20

*5. AJITHA, KANNANNOOR HOUSE, CHENNITHALA SOUTH MURI, THRIPPERUMTHURA VILLAGE-690 105. (DELETED)

2/-

sts

-2-

R.P.NO.165/2012

*6. OMANAKUTTAN PILLAI, AMPADI HOUSE, CHERUKOLE P.O., CHERUKOLE VILLAGE-690 104. (DELETED)

¶26

*7. UNNIKRISHNA PILLAI, THEKKEPUTHEN PURACKAL, CHENNITHALA THEKKUM MURI, THRIPPERUMTHURA VILLAGE- 690 105. (DELETED)

¶27

*8. MANMADAN NAIR, KANNANNOOR VADAKKATHIL HOUSE, CHENNITHALA THEKKUM MURI,

¶28

THRIPPERUMTHURA-690 105. (DELETED)

¶29

*9. RDO,

¶30

CHENGANNUR-689 121. (DELETED)

¶31

*10. VILLAGE OFFICER, THRIPPERUMTHURA VILLAGE, THRIPPERUMTHURA P.O., MAVELIKKARA-690 105. (DELETED)

¶32

*11. STATE OF KERALA,

¶33

REP. BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ALAPPUZHA-688 001. (DELETED)

¶34

*RESPONDENTS 2 TO 11 ARE DELETED FROM THE PARTY ARRAY AT THE RISK OF PETITIONERS AS PER THE ORDER DATED 4/2/13 IN IA.NO.272/13.

¶35

R1 BY ADV. SRI.R.KRISHNA RAJ

¶36

ADV. AZAD BABU(ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER)

¶37

THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07-01-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

sts

R.P.NO.165/2012

APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:

¶42

ANNEX 1 COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY 1ST RESPONDENT IN E.P.NO.29/09 IN O.S.NO.208/05 ON THE FILE OF MUNISFF COURT, MAVELIKKARA. ANNEX 2 COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT IN E.P.NO.29/09 IN O.S.NO.208/05 ON THE FILE OF MUNISFF'S COURT, MAVELIKKARA.

¶43

RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES: NIL

/TRUE COPY/

P.A.TO JUDGE

sts

P.B.SURESH KUMAR, J.

¶48

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Review Petition No.165 of 2012

¶49

¶50

R.S.A.No.28 of 2011.

¶51

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

¶52

Dated this the 7^th day of January, 2016.

¶53

O R D E R

¶54

Heard the learned counsel for the review

¶55

petitioners as also the learned counsel for the first respondent.

¶56

Respondents 1 to 3 in the second appeal are the review petitioners.

¶57

The first defendant in a suit for injunction was the appellant in the second appeal. The suit was in relation to the family temple of the parties. The defendants

¶58

were managing the affairs of the suit temple. Among them, the first defendant was the Secretary of the managing committee. The plaintiffs have replaced the defendants.

¶59

R.P.No.165/2012 in RSA.No.28/2011.

¶60

¶61

Thereupon, the suit was filed alleging that the first defendant who had removed the movables of the suit temple described in plaint schedules 3 and 4 has not returned the same to the plaintiffs. The gold ornaments adorned on the deity at the time of the festival of the temple are the movables included in the plaint schedule item No.3 and the records relating to the administration of the temple for the period during which the defendants were managing the affairs of the temple are the movables included in the plaint schedule item No.4. The trial court found that the first defendant who was the Secretary of the managing committee of the temple had removed the aforesaid movables and consequently granted to the plaintiffs a decree of mandatory injunction directing the first defendant to return to the plaintiffs the movables described in the plaint schedule item Nos.3 and 4. Though the first defendant challenged the decision of the trial court in appeal, the appellate court confirmed the decision of the

¶62

R.P.No.165/2012

¶63

in RSA.No.28/2011.

¶64

¶65

trial court. The first defendant challenged the decision of the appellate court before this Court in the second appeal. When the second appeal came up for admission, the review petitioners/plaintiffs entered appearance. One of the contentions raised by the appellant in the second appeal was that though it is described in the plaint schedule item No.3 that the ornaments of the deity is weighing 10 sovereigns, the same do not carry the said weight and therefore, in view of the manner in which the ornaments are described in the decree schedule, the appellant would be compelled to add gold to the actual weight of the gold ornaments. This Court did not accept any of the contentions raised by the appellant including the contention referred to above. However, as regards the contention referred to above, this Court recorded the submission made on behalf of the plaintiffs at the time of hearing that there can be a clarification to the effect that the gold ornaments of the deity which are made available at the time of the

¶66

R.P.No.165/2012 in RSA.No.28/2011.

¶67

¶68

festival of the temple alone need be returned to the plaintiffs. The relevant portion of the judgment in the second appeal reads thus:

¶69

“Final submission of the learned counsel is that though item No.3 of the plaint schedule properties as described as gold ornament of the deity and golden lockets weighing 10 sovereigns, ornaments were having only lesser weight and in view of the description in the decree appellant would be compelled to add gold to the actual weight of the gold ornaments belonging to the temple. It was also pointed out that ornaments of the deity is being made available to the temple at the time of festival and there was no dispute on their identity. Learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 to 3 submitted that there can be a clarification that gold ornaments of the deity, which was being made available during the time of festival need alone be returned to the plaintiff. It is recorded.”

¶70

The contention raised by the plaintiffs in this

¶71

review petition is that the submission made by the plaintiffs as recorded in the judgment is being misinterpreted by the first defendant before the court executing the decree as what is directed to be returned by the first defendant are the ornaments available with the first defendant and not the

¶72

R.P.No.165/2012 in RSA.No.28/2011.

¶73

¶74

gold ornaments scheduled in the decree. It was pointed out by the learned counsel for the review petitioners that the stand now taken by the first defendant is that the ornaments of the deity described in the plaint schedule item No.3 are not gold ornaments, but, only plated jewellery. According to the learned counsel, to avoid misinterpretation of the decision of this Court, it is necessary to clarify that the first defendant shall return to the plaintiffs the gold ornaments adorned on the deity at the time of festival.

¶75

As indicated above, the decree in the suit is for return of the movables described in plaint schedule item Nos.3 and 4. The said decree has been confirmed in appeal and this Court did not interfere with the said decision of the trial court as confirmed in appeal. True, when it was argued that the ornaments described in the plaint schedule item No.3 do not carry ten sovereigns, it was clarified that the first defendant need return only the gold ornaments

¶76

R.P.No.165/2012 in RSA.No.28/2011.

¶77

¶78

adorned on the deity at the time of the temple festival. I do not find scope for any misinterpretation of the said judgment as contended by the learned counsel for the review petitioners. The review petition, in the said circumstances, is devoid of merits and the same is

¶79

accordingly dismissed.

¶80

Sd/- P.B.SURESH KUMAR,

JUDGE.

Kvs/-

// true copy //

PA TO JUDGE.

Kannannoor Devi Temple, Chennithala v. Sasikumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kannannoor Devi Temple, Chennithala v. Sasikumar

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

Valsala Vs Geetha Rajmohan

Victor Vs Raechal Job

Kanhangad Municipality Vs Amina

V.Radha and Others Vs Madakara Valappilekandi Sukumaran

Baby Issac Vs the Vembanad Kuries Private Ltd.

Jayaprakash Kamalaksh Kammath Vs Puthiyapurayil Masood