Partly allowed

Smt.Ratnamalika Varassiar v. Board of Trustees

Kerala HC19 Jan 2017OP(C)/228/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside the lower court's order dismissing an application to appoint a court guardian for deities. It directed the lower court to reconsider the application after hearing the petitioner and the Board of Trustees, which the High Court indicated should represent the deities.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order is set aside. The court below is directed to reconsider the application for appointment of a court guardian for the deities after hearing the parties.

Smt.Ratnamalika Varassiar Vs Board of Trustees — Kerala HC (2017) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF JANUARY 2017/29TH POUSHA, 1938

¶5

OP(C).No. 228 of 2013 (O)

¶6

IA. NO.863/2012 IN O.S. NO.246/2009 OF ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF COURT-II, KOZHIKODE.

¶7

PETITIONER(S):

¶8

SMT.RATNAMALIKA VARASSIAR, AGED 55 YEARS, W/O. KRISHNA VARRIER, "HARIPRIYA", VATTOOLI PARAMBA, MANASSERY POST, MUKKOM VIA, THAZHEKKODE AMSOM DESOM OF KOZHIKODE TALUK.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.T.R.RAVI.

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

1. BOARD OF TRUSTEES, VANDOOR MAHADEVA KSHETHRAM, MANASSERY POST, MUKKOM VIA, THAZHEKODE AMSOM DESOM OF KOZHIKODE TALUK, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, PALAKUNNUMMEL SUNEESH, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, S/O.PALAKKUNNUMMEL KANARAN, PIN-673 602.

¶12

2. SURESH KUMAR, AGED 43 YEARS, S/O. PLAKKUMCHALIL BALAN NAIR, NEELESWARAM POST, KODUVALLY VIA, THAZHEKODE AMSOM DESOM OF KOZHIKODE TALUK, PIN -673 572.

¶13

3. LORD SHIVA (DEITY), VANDOOR MAHADEVA KSHETHRAM, REPRESENTED BY CHAIRMAN, BOARD OF TRUSTEE, THAZHEKODE AMSOM DESOM OF KOZHIKODE TALUK, PIN -673 001.

¶14

4. LORD VISHNU (DEITY), VANDOOR MAHADEVA KSHETHRAM, REPRESENTED BY CHAIRMAN, BOARD OF TRUSTEE, THAZHEKODE AMSOM DESOM OF KOZHIKODE TALUK, PIN- 673 602.

¶15

OP(C).No. 228 of 2013 (O)

¶16

5. EXECUTIVE OFFICER, VANDOOR MAHADEVA KSHETHRAM, MANASSERY POST, MUTTOM, PIN-673 602.

¶17

THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19-01-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

rs.

¶19

OP(C).No. 228 of 2013 (O)

¶20

APPENDIX

¶21

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:-

¶22

EXT.P1 COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 22/10/2012 IN I.A. NO.862/2012 IN OS. NO.246/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF COURT-II, KOZHIKODE.

¶23

EXT.P2 COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 22/10/2012 IN I.A. NO.863/2012 IN OS. NO.246/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF COURT-II, KOZHIKODE.

¶24

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:- NIL.

//TRUE COPY//

P.S. TO JUDGE

rs.

A. MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, J.

¶29

O.P.(C) No. 228 of 2013

¶30

Dated this the 19^th day of January, 2017

¶31

J U D G M E N T

¶32

1.In view of the fact that notice has been served on respondents 1, 2, 4 & 5, the 3^rd respondent being a deity, notice to the 3^rd respondent is dispensed with. Service complete.

¶33

2.The petitioner is the plaintiff in a suit for injunction. In the suit, the plaintiff arrayed the deities in the party array. Apart from the deities, the Board of Trustees of Vandoor Mahadeva Kshethram is also in the party array. The petitioner filed an application to appoint a court guardian to represent the deities. This was objected by the 5^th respondent Executive Officer, stating that as per the orders of the Malabar Devaswom Board, the Board of Trustees not exists and now, the executive officer alone is competent to represent the deities. Accepting the contention of the executive officer, the court below dismissed the

¶34

O.P.(C) No. 228 of 2013

¶35

..2..

¶36

application.

¶37

3.It is now submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff that the Board of Trustees has now resumed the office. It is also submitted that the deities have to be represented by a person other than official persons for non official purpose.

¶38

4.In the matter of appointment of court guardian, the court below has to give utmost importance, especially, when representing the deities in the interest of devotees. If the Board of Trustees has now resumed the office, certainly, the court below shall appoint the Board of Trustees to represent the deities.

¶39

5.In such circumstances, this Court is of the view that the impugned order has to be set aside and the court below shall reconsider the application afresh after hearing the petitioner, the Board of Trustees as well as others.

¶40

6.The original petition is disposed of, as above.

¶41

Sd/- A. MUHAMED MUSTAQUE JUDGE

¶42

bka/-

Smt.Ratnamalika Varassiar v. Board of Trustees

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt.Ratnamalika Varassiar v. Board of Trustees

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

Georgekutty Vs Sudhakaran

Indirabai Amma Vs Haris

Sri. J. Somarajan Vs Sri. Mayadas

K.S.Sanjeev Vs P.Vasudevan

Thomas Vs State of Kerala

Surendran Vs Prasad