Allowed

P.v.Narayanaswamy v. Vancheeswara Iyer @ Raja

Kerala HC24 May 2022RP/275/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed two review petitions challenging an order in a Hindu temple trust suit. The Court held that a specific observation in the prior judgment regarding the definition of 'Hindu Religious Endowment' was unnecessary for the original decision. To remove potential prejudice, the observation was deleted.

What did the court decide?

Reviewed petitions allowed; the last sentence of paragraph 13 of the impugned judgment deleted; the question left open for the trial court to decide independently.

P.v.Narayanaswamy Vs Vancheeswara Iyer @ Raja — Kerala HC (2022) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 24^TH DAY OF MAY 2022 / 3RD JYAISHTA, 1944 RP NO. 275 OF 2022

¶5

¶6

KERALA

¶7

REVIEW PETITIONER/S:

¶8

1 P.V.NARAYANASWAMY AGED 86 YEARS S/O.LATE VENKITESWARA IYER, LAWYER, HAVING ADDRESS AT PUTHEN MADOM, SAMOOHAM ROAD, NELLIKUZHI PANCHAYATH, THRIKKARIYOOR DESOM, THRIKKARIYOOR VILLAGE, KOTHAMANGALAM TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686 692. 2 M.SANKARANARAYANA SASTHRI @ M.S.SASTHRI AGED 84 YEARS S/O. LATE SIVARAMAKRISHNA IYER, RETIRED FROM FACT, HAVING ADDRESS AT MALIKKAL MADOM, JAYASREE GARDEN, GRAMAM ROAD, NELLIKUZHI PANCHAYATH, THRIKKARIYOOR DESOM, THRIKKARIYOOR VILLAGE, KOTHAMANGALAM TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN- 686 692. 3 KANNAN S.IYER AGED 63 YEARS S/O.LATE SUBRAMANIA IYER, BUSINESS HAVING ADDRESS AT KARAMAL MADOM, THANKALAM ROAD, NELLIKUZHI PANCHAYATH, THRIKKARIYOOR DESOM, THRIKKARIYOOR VILLAGE, KOTHAMANGALAM TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686 692. 4 SUBRAMANIA RAJESH AGED 48 YEARS S/O.SUBRAMANIA IYER, PRESENTLY UNEMPLOYED, RESIDING AT 5/393, NJALUMADOM, THRIKKARIYOOR GRAMAM ROAD, NELLIKUZHI PANCHAYATH, THRIKKARIYOOR DESOM, THRIKKARIYOOR VILLAGE, KOTHAMANGALAM TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686 692. 5 THRIKARIYOOR BRAHMANA SAMOOHAM TRUST TRUST REGISTERED AS DEED NO.279/2019 OF SRO KOTHAMANGALAM, THRIKKARIYOOR P.O., THRIKKARIYOOR KARA, THRIKKARIYOOR VILLAGE, KOTHAMANGALAM TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN- 686 692, PRESENTLY FUNCTIONING FROM 5/393 NJALUMADOM, THRIKKARIYOOR GRAMAM ROAD, NELLIKUZHI PANCHAYATH, THRIKKARIYOOR DESOM, THRIKKARIYOOR VILLAGE, KOTHAMANGALAM TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686 692, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT AND JOINT SECRETARY. BY ADVS. M.P.RAMNATH

¶9

RP Nos.275 & 286 of 2022

¶10

-2-

¶11

P.RAJESH (KOTTAKKAL) M.VARGHESE VARGHESE SEBASTIAN K.JOSE S.SANDHYA SHALU VARGHESE S.DEEPAK ANTONY THARIAN

¶12

RESPONDENT/S:

¶13

1 VANCHEESWARA IYER @ RAJA AGED 55 YEARS S/O.LATE SIVASUBRAMANYA IYER, BUSINESS, VENGOLA MADOM, GRAMAM TEMPLE ROAD, NELLIKUZHI PANCHAYATH, THRIKKARIYOOR DESOM,THRIKKARIYOOR VILLAGE, KOTHAMANGALAM TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686 692. 2 ANANTHAVILSWANATHAN AGED 61 YEARS S/O.LATE SIVASWAMY IYER, PRIVATE EMPLOYEE, HAVING ADDRESS AT MALICKAL MADOM, SAMOOHAM ROAD, NELLIKUZHI PANCHAYATH, THRIKKARIYOOR DESOM, THRIKKARIYOOR VILLAGE, KOTHAMANGALAM TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN- 686 692. 3 GEETHAKUMARI AGED 46 YEARS W/O.VANCHEESWARA IYER, HOUSEWIFE, VENGOLA MADOM, GRAMAM TEMPLE ROAD, NELLIKUZHI PANCHAYATH, THRIKKARIYOOR DESOM, THRIKKARIYOOR VILLAGE, KOTHAMANGALAM TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686 692. THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28.03.2022, ALONG WITH RP.286/2022, THE COURT ON 24.05.2022, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

RP Nos.275 & 286 of 2022

¶15

-3-

¶16

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶17

PRESENT

¶18

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN

¶19

TUESDAY, THE 24^TH DAY OF MAY 2022 / 3RD JYAISHTA, 1944

¶20

RP NO. 286 OF 2022

¶21

¶22

KERALA

¶23

REVIEW PETITIONER/S:

¶24

1	P.V.NARAYANASWAMY AGED 86 YEARS S/O.LATE VENKITESWARA IYER, LAWYER, HAVING ADDRESS AT PUTHEN MADOM, SAMOOHAM ROAD, NELLIKUZHI PANCHAYATH, THRIKKARIYOOR DESOM, THRIKKARIYOOR VILLAGE, KOTHAMANGALAM TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686 692.
2	M.SANKARANARAYANA SASTHRI @ M.S.SASTHRI AGED 84 YEARS S/O.LATE SIVARAMAKRISHNA IYER, RETIRED FROM FACT, HAVING ADDRESS AT MALIKKAL MADOM, JAYASREE GARDEN, GRAMAM ROAD, NELLIKUZHI PANCHAYATH, THRIKKARIYOOR DESOM, THRIKKARIYOOR VILLAGE, KOTHAMANGALAM TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686 692.
3	KANNAN S.IYER AGED 63 YEARS S/O.LATE SUBRAMANIA IYER, BUSINESS HAVING ADDRESS AT KARAMAL MADOM, THANKALAM ROAD, NELLIKUZHI PANCHAYATH, THRIKKARIYOOR DESOM, THRIKKARIYOOR VILLAGE, KOTHAMANGALAM TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686 692.
4	SUBRAMANIA RAJESH AGED 48 YEARS
	S/O.SUBRAMANIA IYER, PRESENTLY UNEMPLOYED, RESIDING AT 5/393 NJALUMADOM, THRIKKARIYOOR GRAMAM ROAD, NELLIKUZHI PANCHAYATH, THRIKKARIYOOR DESOM, THRIKKARIYOOR VILLAGE, KOTHAMANGALAM TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686 692.
5	THRIKKARIYOOR BRAHMANA SAMOOHAM TRUST TRUST REGISTERED AS DEED NO.279/2019 OF SRO

¶25

RP Nos.275 & 286 of 2022

¶26

-4-

¶27

KOTHAMANGALAM, THRIKKARIYOOR P.O., THRIKKARIYOOR KARA, THRIKKARIYOOR VILLAGE, KOTHAMANGALAM TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686 692, PRESENTLY FUNCTIONING FROM 5/393,NJALUMADOM, THRIKKARIYOOR GRAMAM ROAD, NELLIKUZHI PANCHAYATH, THRIKKARIYOOR DESOM, THRIKKARIYOOR VILLAGE, KOTHAMANGALAM TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686 692, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT AND JOINT SECRETARY. BY ADVS. M.P.RAMNATH M.VARGHESE VARGHESE S.SANDHYA BEPIN PAUL S.DEEPAK ANTONY THARIAN

¶28

RESPONDENT/S:

¶29

1 VANCHEESWARA IYER @ RAJA AGED 55 YEARS S/O.LATE SIVASUBRAMANYA IYER, BUSINESS, VENGOLA MADOM, GRAMAM TEMPLE ROAD, NELLIKUZHI PANCHAYATH, THRIKKARIYOOR DESOM, THRIKKARIYOOR VILLAGE, KOTHAMANGALAM TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686 692. 2 ANANTHAVISWANATHAN AGED 61 YEARS S/O.LATE SIVASWAMY IYER, PRIVATE EMPLOYEE, HAVING ADDRESS AT MALICKAL MADOM, SAMOOHAM ROAD, NELLIKUZHI PANCHAYATH, THRIKKARIYOOR DESOM, THRIKKARIYOOR VILLAGE, KOTHAMANGALAM TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686 692. 3 GEETHAKUMARI AGED 46 YEARS W/O.VANCHEESWARA IYER, HOUSEWIFE, VENGOLA MADOM, GRAMAM TEMPLE ROAD, NELLIKUZHI PANCHAYATH, THRIKKARIYOOR DESOM, THRIKKARIYOOR VILLAGE, KOTHAMANGALAM TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686 692.

¶30

THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON

¶31

28.03.2022, THE COURT ON 24.05.2022, ALONG WITH RP.275/2022,

¶32

DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶33

RP Nos.275 & 286 of 2022

¶34

-5-

¶35

ORDER

¶36

Dated this the 24^th day of May, 2022

¶37

By the judgment sought to be reviewed, the challenge against I.A.Nos.5 and 6 of 2020 in O.S.No.55 of 2020 on the files of the Munsiff's

¶38

Court, Kothamangalam was repelled. By the order in I.A.No.5 of 2020, the trial court appointed a

¶39

Receiver to manage the properties as well as the spiritual and temporal affairs of the Thrikkariyoor Brahmana Samooham and Thrikkariyar Brahmana Samooha Madhom. By the order in I.A.No.6 of 2020, the defendants were injuncted from interfering with the administration and affairs of the Thrikkariyoor Brahmana Samooham and Thrikkariyoor Brahmana Samooha Madhom.

¶40

The review petitioners, who were the

¶41

respondents in the original petitions and the defendants in the suit, are aggrieved by the

¶42

RP Nos.275 & 286 of 2022

¶43

following observation at paragraph 13 of this Court's judgment;

¶44

“If so, the Thrikkariyoor Brahmana Samooham would fall within the definition of 'Hindu Religious Endowment' under Section 2(b) of Part I and not within the definition of 'Institution' in Section 61 (6) of Part II.”

¶45

petitioners put forth detailed contentions to

¶46

assail the finding and submitted that, such an observation was not necessary for deciding the

¶47

issue involved in the original petitions.

¶48

review petitioners/respondents in the original petition also.

¶49

Having heard the learned Counsel, I find

¶50

merit in the contention that the above extracted observation in paragraph 13 of the judgment was

¶51

unnecessary and may prejudice the review petitioners in the contest of the suit. Hence,

¶52

RP Nos.275 & 286 of 2022

¶53

the review petitions are allowed and the last sentence in paragraph 13 of the judgment, deleted, leaving it open for the trial court to decide that question independently, if and when

¶54

it arises for consideration.

¶55

Sd/-

¶56

V.G.ARUN JUDGE

¶57

Scl/

P.v.Narayanaswamy v. Vancheeswara Iyer @ Raja

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.v.Narayanaswamy v. Vancheeswara Iyer @ Raja

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

Vijayamma Vs State of Kerala

Girija K Vs the Director

M Madhu Vs State of Kerala (Represented by Its Secretary)

Sathian K.C, Vs State of Kerala

Vancheeswara Iyar @ Raja Vs P.v.Narayanaswamy

Vancheeswara Iyar Vs P.v.Narayanswamy