1. Has any court other than the District Court the jurisdiction to try any suit relating to the appointment of 'Melsanti' in the Sree Krishna Temple at Guruvayur?

2. The suit in O.S. No. 897/2013 on the file of the court of the Munsiff of Chavakkad was filed for a declaration that non inclusion of persons possessing 'abhijathyam' for selection to the post of 'Melsanti' (chief priest) in the Sree Krishna Temple is arbitrary and illegal. A mandatory injunction was also sought in the suit directing the Administrator of Guruvayur Devaswom to include persons possessing 'abhijathyam' amongst Nambudiris for selection to the post of 'Melsanthi' in the Sree Krishna Temple hereafter. The plaintiff contended that he was unceremoniously excluded from selection on the premise that he did not possess 'agnihothram' or 'bhatavrithi' even though he possessed 'abhijathyam' which is sufficient to the post of 'Melsanthi' in the temple. The defendants are the Guruvayur Devaswom, its Administrator and 'Tantri' and two other persons interested in the rituals of the temple got themselves impleaded questioning the very maintainability of the suit in the court of the Munsiff. The plaintiff asserted that the suit is of a civil nature the cognizance of which is not either expressly or impliedly barred under Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and the court of the Munsiff at Chavakkad has very much the jurisdiction to try the same. The court below has by the order impugned overruled the objection as regards the maintainability of the suit and the same is challenged in these two civil revision petitions filed by the third and the fourth defendant separately.

3. I heard Mr. M.P. Ashok Kumar, Advocate on behalf of the petitioner in C.R.P. No. 370/2014 and Mr. K. Ramachandran, Advocate on behalf of the petitioner in C.R.P. No. 390/2014 and Mr. P.B. Sahasranaman, Advocate on behalf of the first respondent in the cases. I also heard Mr. P. Gopal, Advocate on behalf of the Guruvayur Devasom as well as Mr. Mohan C. Menon, Advocate as Amicus Curiae who is well versed with the law governing the administration of temples in the State and also the rituals therein.

4. The Sree Krishna Temple at Guruvayur situated in the district of Thrissur is a very ancient temple of unique importance which owns extensive property and endowments and in which millions of devotees from all over India repose their faith and belief. The Guruvayur Devaswom Act, 1978 (the 'Act' for short) was enacted by the State after a long deliberation to make provision for the proper administration of the Guruvayur Devaswom in public interest and in the interest of the worshipers of the temples thereunder. It shall be the duty of the Guruvayur Devaswom Managing Committee constituted under Section 3 of the Act to arrange for the proper performance of the rights and ceremonies in the temple and the subordinate temples attached thereto under Section 10(a) of the Act. The Guruvayur Devaswom Managing Committee is empowered to constitute a sub-committee from among its members for the selection of the officers and other employees of the Guruvayur Devaswom under Section 19(3) of the Act. The proviso thereto stipulates that the 'Tantri' of the temple who is the final authority in religious matters under Section 35(2) of the Act shall be a member of the sub-committee as regards the selection of employees to be in charge of the rituals and other ceremonies of the temple. It is beyond any pale of doubt that the appointment of 'Melsanthi' in the Sree Krishna Temple at Guruvayur is governed by the provisions of the Act which also gives the necessary indicia about the court where the grievances are to be ventilated.

5. Section 2(d) of the Act defines the term 'court' as under:

“(d) 'Court' means the District Court having jurisdiction over the area in which the Temple is situated”

Sections 5(5), 6(3), 11(6), 12(3), 20(4) and 26(4) provide for filing of suits in 'the court' under various cont