Disposed

Unnikrishnan v. the Devaswom Commissioner

Kerala HC18 Jan 2016WP(C)/12096/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged a notice requiring him to prove hereditary temple rights. The Court refused to compel the Devaswom Board to issue fresh notice to an unlocatable third respondent after eight years, directing the petitioner to approach the Board itself for adjudication.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to approach Devaswom Board; no fresh notice to unlocatable third respondent ordered; writ petition closed with no costs.

Unnikrishnan Vs the Devaswom Commissioner — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN

¶4

MONDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF JANUARY 2016/28TH POUSHA, 1937

¶5

WP(C).No. 12096 of 2007 (M)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

UNNIKRISHNAN,S/O.KANNANAMKULAM THACHIL MARATH AMMINIAMMA, CHENTHRAPPINNI P.O THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.K.G.BALASUBRAMANIAN

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

THE DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER,COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD, THRISSUR.

¶11

THE MANAGER,SRI.DEVASWOM,KODUNGALLUR.

¶12

MUKUNDAN,THACHIL MARATH,METHALA, KODUNGALLUR. NEW ADDRESS:

¶13

MUKUNDAN, THACHIL MARATH, HOUSE NO.495 (OLD 477)

¶14

VINOBAJI NAGAR

¶15

GANAPATHY P O 641 006, COIMBATORE, TAMIL NADU

¶16

(THE NEW ADDRESS OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT IS INCORPORATED AS PER THE ORDER DATED 18.01.2016 IN I.A NO. 369/2016)

¶17

COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD,TRISSUR REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶18

R1,2& 4 BY ADV. SRI.K.GOPALAKRISHNA KURUP,SC,COCHIN D.B R1,4 BY ADV. SRI.N.RAGHURAJ,SC,COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD BY V. KRISHNA MENON, SC

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18-01-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

WPC NO.12096/2007

¶21

APPENDIX

¶22

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶23

EXT.P1	:	TRUE COPY OF THE WILL DATED 14.4.96 EXECUTED BY LATE BHASKARAN MARAR
EXT.P2	:	TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DT 21.3.2007 SUBMITTED
		BY PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1^STRESPONDENT
EXT.P3	:	TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION DT 29.3.2007 SUBMITTED BY KUNHIKAVAMMA BEFORE THE 1^STRESPONDENT
EXT.P4	:	TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION DT 21.3.2007 SUBMITTED BY AMMINIAMMA BEFORE THE 1^STRESPONDENT
EXT.P5	:	TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DT 21.3.2007 SUBMITTED BY NARAYAN MARAR BEFORE 1^STRESPONDENT
EXT.P6	:	TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 21.4.2006 ISSUED BY VILLAGE OFFICER, EDATHIRUTHY
EXT.P7	:	TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE NO. M4.3495/2005 DT 6.3.2007

¶24

RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS:NIL

TRUE COPY

P.A TO JUDGE

jma

K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J

- - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P(C) No. 12096 of 2007

¶30

¶31

Dated this the 18^th day of January, 2016

¶32

J U D G M E N T

¶33

The petitioner was aggrieved with the notice issued at

¶34

Ext.P7. The notice to the 3^rd respondent has been returned for

¶35

want of correct address. In such circumstance, this Court is not inclined to permit any fresh notice to be served on the 3^rd respondent at this point of time, i.e. after eight years from the filing of the writ petition. In any event the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the 3^rd respondent is not available, and the affairs of the temple are carried out by a proxy appointed by the 3^rd respondent. These are matters which could be looked into by the Devaswom Board itself.

¶36

Ext.P7 was a notice issued to the petitioner, in which

¶37

the petitioner was directed to produce the material to substantiate his contention that he and his family have the hereditary right to

¶38

perform the duties in the temple. The petitioner has produced

¶39

WPC.No.12096/2007

¶40

: 2 :

¶41

Ext.P1 will by which he claims predecessor in interest had granted

¶42

such right to the petitioner, which according to the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Devaswom Board would not by itself prove the right as such. It is definitely to be examined whether the executant of Ext.P1 had any right which he could validly bequeath. In such circumstance if the petitioner is still aggrieved, the petitioner could approach the Devaswom Board. The Devaswom Board could also issue notice to whoever is discharging the duties as of now and after hearing the rival parties, decide on the issue. The writ petition is closed despite the fact that the 3^rd respondent has not been issued with notice, since there is specific direction in this judgment to hear the affected parties when the Devaswom Board decides the issue.

¶43

Writ petition is closed. No costs.

¶44

Sd/-

¶45

jma

¶46

(K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE) //true copy//

¶47

P.A to Judge

Unnikrishnan v. the Devaswom Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Unnikrishnan v. the Devaswom Commissioner

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

Reshma E.V.M. Vs State of Kerala

Meenakshikutty M. Vs Child Development Project Officer

Radhamani Amma & Others Vs State of Kerala & Another

Dr.Valyomana Vs Mahatma Gandhi University

Saju S. Vs the Managing Director Ksfe

John Lawerence Vs Kerala Public Service Commission