Back
Supreme Court Of India
A.A.GOPALAKRISHNAN - Appellant
Versus
COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD - Respondent
Decided On : 07/19/2007
Devaswom Board - Property Dispute - Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 - Section 72, Rule 3A of CPC - Fraud/Collusion - Compromise Decree
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a dispute over land belonging to a temple managed by the Devaswom Board. The Board entered into a compromise with the respondents, leading to a legal challenge by a third party alleging collusion and illegal transfer of temple property.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the compromise decree was invalid due to fraud and collusion, and directed the Board to take possession of the disputed land as previously ordered by the court. It also instructed the Collector to investigate the circumstances of a previous order related to the land.
Issues: The issues included the validity of the compromise decree, the authority of the Board to enter into the compromise, and the alleged fraud and collusion in the transfer of temple property.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that while compromise decrees should not be interfered with lightly, they can be set aside if fraud or collusion is proven. It also emphasized the duty of courts to protect the properties of religious institutions from wrongful claims or misappropriation.
Final Decision: The court set aside the compromise decree, directed the Board to take possession of the disputed land, and instructed the Collector to conduct an inquiry into a previous order related to the land.
JUDGMENT
K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, CJI
Leave granted. Application for exemption from filing O.T. is granted.
2.An extent of 21 cents of land in Survey No.1042/2 of Mulanthuruthy village, Kanayannur Taluk, Ernakulam District, belonged to Karikkode Sastha and Maha Vishnu temple under the management of Cochin Devaswom Board (Board for short).
3.One T.K. Asokan filed a complaint before the High Court of Kerala alleging that respondents 3 and 4 had encroached upon the said land, and were in illegal possession. The complaint was registered as CDBNo.3/1996. The High Court by order dated 12.6.1997 held that the said Sy No.1042/2 (21 cents) was part of the property of Karikkode Sasthaand Vishnu Temple and gave a direction to the Board to take possession of the said land without delay. Respondents 3 and 4 challenged the said order before this Court in SLP (C) No.12985/1997 contending that they had acquired title over the said land by their long possession. This Court disposed of the said petition by the following order dated 30.3.1998:
"In the facts and circumstances of this case, having heard learned counsel for the parties, we do not think it is a fit case for our interference against the impugned direction of the High Court. The property in question should be delivered to the Devasthanam, if has not been delivered in the meantime. But since the High Court has given a declaration in respect of the property in a summary proceedings, it would be open for the petitioners to establish its title in a regularly instituted civil suit, if so advised and in the event of such a suit is filed, the finding the High Court will not be a bar for the civil court."
In view of the said order of this Court, the High Court closed the complaint (CDB No.3/1996) by order dated 9.9.1998, with a direction to the Devaswom Board to take possession of the said land, by taking police help, if necessary.
4.Respondents 3 to 5 thereafter filed O.S.No.399/1998 on the file of the Sub-Court, Ernakulam, against the Devaswom Board seeking declaration of title in respect of Sy.No.1042/2 and consequential injunction. During the pendency of the suit, they submitted are presentation dated 6.7.2000 to the Board requesting for a settlement. They proposed an exchange of Sy. No.1042/2 (21 cents of land which belonged to Karikkode Devaswom) with Sy. No.1043 (30 cents of land which was in the possession of Karikkode Devaswom, but title to which was claimed by respondent No. 3).
5.Without even waiting for a reply for the letter proposing settlement, respondents 3 to 5 filed a writ petition (OP No.20251/2000)before the High Court and secured an ex parte order dated 27.7.2000directing the Board to consider their representation and pass an order thereon. In view of the said direction, the Board considered there presentation and passed a resolution dated 29.8.2000 agreeing to the proposal and entered into a compromise with respondents 3 to 5 on30.8.2000. The said compromise petition recorded a settlement that the parties will enter into a Deed of Exchange, by which plaintiffs(respondents 3 to 5 herein) would surrender their title and interest in respect of 30 cents in Survey No.1043 (Resurvey No.175/5) of Mulanthuruthy village, Kanayannur Taluk, Ernakulam District (which was the subject matter of the Purchase Certificate No.581/76 and 586/76dated 21.2.1976 issued by the Deputy Collector (LT) No. IV, Ernakulam)where the three idols/vigrahas of Upadevanmar (Sri Malikappuram, Sri Malanada and another) were situated in favour of the defendant (Board)and in exchange the Defendant (Board) would surrender the right, title and interest in respect of Sy. No.1042/2 (measuring 21 cents) in favour of the plaintiffs. The Sub-court, Ernakulam decreed O.S. No.399/1998 on18.9.2000 in terms of the said compromise.
6.The appellant herein challenged the said compromise in writ petition (O.P.No.19728/2001) before the High Court alleging that the settlement of the suit was collusive and the land which was agreed to be tr
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
