The single judge dismissed an appeal against an order of injunction in a temple trust dispute. The court declined to adjudicate merits as the event was concluded, staying the matter open for future appropriate remedies.
The appeal was closed without entering into the merits, leaving all contentions open for future pursuit through appropriate legal remedies.
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 DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
THURSDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF JANUARY 2020 / 26TH POUSHA, 1941
FAO.No.201 OF 2019
AGAINST THE ORDER IN I.A.NO.1844/2019 IN OS 97/1099 ME DATED 17-12-2019 OF I ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KOLLAM
PETITIONER/PETITIONER IN ABOVE I.A.:
ANILKUMAR A. AGED 43 YEARS S/O APPUKUTTAN ACHARI NADAYIL VADAKKATHIL,THIRUMULLAVARAM.P.O.,KOLLAM-691012
BY ADVS. SRI.A.KRISHNAN SRI.R.UMASANKAR SRI.R.R.SAJEESH
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS IN ABOVE I.A.:
1 SIVAPRASAD N. TRUST MEMBER,SRI MULAMKADAM DEVI KSHETHRAM,THIRUMULLAVARAM PO,KOLLAM-691012.
2 P. VIJAYA BABU TRUST MEMBER,SRI MULAMKADAM DEVI KSHETHRAM,THIRUMULLAVARAM PO,KOLLAM-691012.
4 MOHANAN TRUST MEMBER,SRI MULAMKADAM DEVI KSHETHRAM,THIRUMULLAVARAM PO,KOLLAM-691012.
THIS FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDERS HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16.01.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
FAO.No.201 OF 2019 2
JUDGMENT
I have heard Shri.A.Krishnan, learned
counsel for the appellant, in great detail
today and am fully conscious that this Court has already issued notices before admission to the respondents, which have yet not been returned. I am, however, of the view that this Court will still be justified in disposing of this F.A.O. finally for the reasons that I will state presently.
before the District Court, Kollam, wherein, he had prayed for an injunction against the
respondents, who are stated to be the trustees of a temple by name “Sree
Mulankadakam Devi Temple” from conducting a function under the name 'Pancha Veda
Sadmam', which he alleges has been allowed to be conducted by an outside organization
by name “Viswakarma Vedapadana Kendram & Dharmika Sangham”.
FAO.No.201 OF 2019 3
trustees have allowed the afore mentioned organization to conduct the programme in contravention and violation of the terms of
the Scheme under which the temple is being administered and that large amounts of money
were being collected by the afore organization from the devotees, making it
appear that the programme was being
conducted by the temple. He thus prayed that the afore mentioned programme be injuncted.
for the appellant, however, today concedes that the programme in question has been completed and that the order of injunction, even if it is to be passed now would be of no consequence. He, however, says that his
client has been compelled to approach this Court through this appeal, since this order would be treated as a precedent in the
future and similar kinds of transgressions would be made by the trustees with impunity.
FAO.No.201 OF 2019 4
He says that this is the main apprehension
his client faces for having approached this Court.
no longer relevant. The programme, concededly, has been completed and if the appellant has any grievance against the manner in which it was conducted, it is certainly up to him to approach the Court below appropriately either for settlement of accounts or for modification of the Scheme, if he is so entitled. In the absence of any such attempt being made by the appellant, it would be of no relevance or consequence for this Court at this time to consider the validity of the order impugned, because it is expressly admitted that the programme,
against which the injunction was sought, is now over.
FAO.No.201 OF 2019 5
In the afore circumstances, without entering into the merits of any of the contentions and leaving all of them open to be pursued by the appellant in future, if he is so interested, I close this F.A.O; however, without trammeling the liberties and remedies available to the appellant to either seek modification of the Scheme as per law or to pursue such other remedies, as may be available to him, subject to the laws and prescriptions of limitation.
Sd/-
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
JUDGE
MC/16.1.2020
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the appellant's appeal against an order of injunction should be disposed of despite the underlying event having been completed?
1 provisions across 1 enactments
ANILKUMAR A.
SIVAPRASAD N.
P. VIJAYA BABU
NADARAJAN
MOHANAN
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
