In a regular second appeal, the High Court of Kerala held that a religious endowment (Devaswom) is liable to compensate a plaintiff who deposited funds with its office-bearers. The court ruled that the Devaswom cannot disclaim liability when receipts were issued on official letterheads with the seal, and dismissed the appeal.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.HARILAL
FRIDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2016/13TH KARTHIKA, 1938
RSA.No. 1117 of 2016 (G)
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 23-06-2016 IN AS 103/2009 of SUB COURT, CHERTHALA.
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 13-10-2009 IN OS 457/2008 of PRL.MUNSIFF COURT, CHERTHALA.
APPELLANT/APPELLANT/1ST DEFENDANT:
THIRUNELLOOR SREEVISAKHAPURAM DEWASWAM,
THIRUNELLOOR P.O., PALLIPURAM VILLAGE, CHERTHALA TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT,
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT SRI. P.M.SUNIL, AGED 46 YEARS, S/O.MITHRAN, PARISSERY, THIRUNELLOR P.O., CHERTHALA TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.SRI.VARGHESE C.KURIAKOSE SMT.SEENU SADIQUE
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/PLAINTIFF AND 2ND DEFENDANT:
1. KRISHNAN NAIR, AGED 60 YEARS, S/O.KOCHUPILLA KURUP, MANGATTUNIKARTHIL, CHENNAM PALLIPPURAM MURI, CHERTHALA TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT-688 301.
2. N.RAVEENDRAN, AGED 68 YEARS, S/O.NARAYANAN PUTHUPARAMBU, THIRUNELLOR, CHERTHALA, SUED AS FORMER SECRETARY, THIRUNELLOOR SREEVISAKHAPURAM DEWASWAM, THIRUNELLOOR, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT-688 304.
THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04-11-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
K. HARILAL, J.
-----------------------------------------------------R.S.A. No.1117 of 2016
-----------------------------------------------------Dated this the 4th day of November, 2016
JUDGMENT
The appellant herein is the 1st defendant in O.S.No.457/2008 on the files of the Principal Munsiff's
Court, Cherthala, as well as the appellant in A.S. No.103/2009 on the files of the Sub Court, Cherthala. The aforesaid suit was filed by the 1st respondent herein seeking recovery of a sum of 69,350/- with future interest on the said amount at the rate of 12% per annum. The plaintiff's case is that on 3/11/2002 an amount of 55,000/- was received by the 1st defendant towards festival fund of the 1st defendant Devaswom and issued Ext.A1 dated 3/11/2002, as the receipt for the said amount. The said amount was received with an agreement that the amount will be
R.S.A. No.1117 of 2016 -: 2 :-
repaid with interest within a period of 5 years with interest. On 22/4/2004, the defendants paid an amount of Rs.15,000/- to the plaintiff. But, after the lapse of 5 years, in spite of repeated demands, the defendants could not pay the amount. Hence the suit was filed for realisation of the amount with interest.
has been received by the Devaswom from the plaintiff and no receipt has been issued. Late Jayadevan, who was the Treasurer of the Devaswom, unauthorisedly received amounts from some persons and due to force, the then Secretary was happened to put his signature and Ext.A1 receipt is the one created fraudulently. When the Devaswom came to the know about the misconduct of the said Jayadevan and the 2nd respondent, the Devaswom, suspended the 2nd respondent. But, subsequently Jayadevan committed suicide. In short, the Devaswom is not liable to pay any amount to the plaintiff. Even if the said
R.S.A. No.1117 of 2016 -: 3 :-
Jayadevan and the 2nd respondent had received the amount, as alleged by the plaintiff, since it is for them to repay the said amount.
R.S.A. No.1117 of 2016
-: 4 :-
defendants.
R.S.A. No.1117 of 2016 -: 5 :-
no receipt had been issued to the plaintiff. But, it has come out in evidence of D.W.2, the 2nd defendant, that the 1st defendant Devaswom used to receive amounts from the devotees towards the festival fund and he has not denied the receipt of the amount for and on behalf of the Devaswom. But, his contention is that the same was received by Jayadevan and he was constrained to put his signature in the blank letter pad of the Devaswom at the request of the said Jayadevan. Thus, the signature happened to be affixed when the said Jayadevan received the amount. Therefore, he is not liable to pay the said amount which was received by the said Jayadevan, who had committed suicide thereafter, for an on behalf of the 1st defendant Devaswom.
R.S.A. No.1117 of 2016 -: 6 :-
contradictory and mutually destructive. Therefore, no reliance can be placed on the contention of the 1st defendant that no amount had been received by the Devaswom from the plaintiff and no receipt had been issued for the receipt of any amount from the plaintiff, so long as the receipt issued by the Devaswom in its official letter pad with official seal, stands admitted as such.
R.S.A. No.1117 of 2016 -: 7 :-
defendant Devaswom is liable to compensate the loss sustained to a third party. No doubt, if the said act was a misconduct done, without the authorisation of the 1st defendant Devaswom, the Devaswom has the right to realise the loss from the office bearers who have committed the misconduct and if the said Jayadevan is no more, the Devaswom can proceed against the assets of the deceased.
R.S.A. No.1117 of 2016 -: 8 :-
transaction between the plaintiff and defendants, the plea of limitation can be deemed to be one made without bona fides. At this juncture, it is to be noticed that even in the plaint, it is specifically averred that the said amount was received on 3/11/2002, as deposit, for five years and repayable after five years, on demand, if the same was not paid within five years. This Court is of the view that the period of limitation will start after five years only i.e., on 3/11/2007. The suit was filed on 18/6/2008. Obviously, the suit was filed within three years from 3/11/2007. Therefore, the suit is not barred by limitation.
R.S.A. No.1117 of 2016 -: 9 :-
are justified in finding that the suit is not barred by limitation. No other point arises for consideration in this Regular Second Appeal.
This Regular Second Appeal is devoid of merits and dismissed accordingly. All pending interlocutory applications will also stand dismissed.
Sd/-
(K. HARILAL, JUDGE)
Nan/
//true copy//
P.S. to Judge
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Devaswom is liable to repay a deposit received by its treasurer and secretary when the receipt bears official letter-pad and seal.
Whether the suit filed for recovery of the deposit is barred by limitation given the five-year deposit term.
THIRUNELLOOR SREEVISAKHAPURAM DEWASWAM
KRISHNAN NAIR
N.RAVEENDRAN
K. HARILAL
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
