Review petition by defendants challenging the judgment affirming a Section 92 CPC decree directing framing of an administration scheme for the Aruvippuram Sree Narayana Dharma Paripalana Yogam. The court held the contentions were mere re-arguments already decided and not valid review grounds, and dismissed the petition.
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 P.B.SURESH KUMAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JOHNSON JOHN
THURSDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 19TH MAGHA, 1945
RP NO. 1002 OF 2022
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 27.05.2022 IN RFA 843/2009 OF
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
REVIEW PETITIONERS/APPELLANTS/DEFENDANT 1 & 2:
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS 4, 6, 7, 10, 11, 13, 14, 17 & 18/4TH PLAINTIFF & DEFENDANTS 3, 4, 7, 8, 10, 11, 14 & 15:
R.P. No.1002 of 2022 in
2
R.F.A. No.843 of 2009
THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ORDERS ON 08.02.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
R.P. No.1002 of 2022 in R.F.A. No.843 of 2009
3
P.B.SURESH KUMAR & JOHNSON JOHN, JJ.
R.P.No.1002 of 2022
in
R.F.A. No.843 of 2009
Dated this the 8th day of February, 2024
O R D E R
P.B.Suresh Kumar, J.
Appellants seek in this proceedings, review of the judgment in the appeal.
R.P. No.1002 of 2022 in R.F.A. No.843 of 2009
4
Yogam is the successor body of Aruvipuram Kshetra Yogam which was a trust created for public purposes of charitable and religious nature; that it was subsequently registered as a company; that the subsequent registration of the Yogam as a company will not oust the jurisdiction of the court in respect of the same under Section 92 of the Code and that therefore, the suit is maintainable. On facts, it was found by the court below that the plaintiffs are entitled to a decree for settling a scheme for the administration of the Yogam. The Court, however, held that the plaintiffs have not made out a case for removal of defendants 2 to 16 from the administration of the Yogam. In the light of the said findings, the court below passed a preliminary decree directing framing of a scheme for the administration of the Yogam in accordance with the law applicable to the Companies. The appeal was preferred by defendants 1 and 2, aggrieved by the said decision of the court below.
R.P. No.1002 of 2022 in
5
R.F.A. No.843 of 2009
decision of this Court that i s sought to be reviewed in this proceedings.
petitioners/appellants.
R.P. No.1002 of 2022 in 6
R.F.A. No.843 of 2009
after considering the elaborate arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the review petitioners, that the judgment sought to be reviewed was delivered. Even though as many as 19 grounds have been raised in the review petition, the review petitioners have not raised any ground that any of the arguments advanced were not con sidered in the judgment. The contentions now raised are nothing but further arguments to bring home the points already raised in the appeal and decided. In short, none of the grounds taken are grounds that could be raised for seeking review of the judgment.
R.P. No.1002 of 2022 in 7
R.F.A. No.843 of 2009
Yogam is a reconstituted body of a public trust of religious and charitable nature namely, Aruvippuram Kshetra Yogam, this review petition is not the remedy for correction of the same. The contention that the judgment sought to be reviewed is vitiated by error of law inasmuch as it has the effect of Aruvippuram Siva Temple and its properties, which were given by its owner to another entity, being divested in the Yo gam, is also, according to us, not a ground to seek review of the judgment.
The review petition, in the circumstances, is without merits and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.
Sd/-
P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE.
Sd/JOHNSON JOHN, JUDGE.
Mn
R.P. No.1002 of 2022 in R.F.A. No.843 of 2009
8
APPENDIX OF RP 1002/2022
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure -1 TRUE COPY OF THE WILL EXECUTED BY SREE NARAYANA GURU DATED 23RD MEDAM 110(ME).
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the grounds raised in the review petition constitute valid grounds for review of the judgment in RFA 843/2009 upholding maintainability of a Section 92 suit against the Yogam.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
S.N.D.P. Yogam A Public Limited Company, rep. by General Secretary V.K. Natesan
V.K. Natesan
K.P. Gopi
K.K. Sunilkumar
C.K. Vidhya Sagar
M.B. Sreekumar
P.B.Suresh Kumar
Johnson John
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
