B. KEMAL PASHA, J.

Can a person belongs to the sect of 'Veluthedathu Nair' be treated as 'Nair' and can he be treated as a 'Malayalee Savarna Hindu' within the meaning of Exhibit P4 By-laws of the 'Paramekkavu Devaswom'?

2. The 3rd defendant in O.S.No.2628 of 2013 of the Munsiff's Court, Thrissur is the petitioner herein. The suit is one filed by the 1st respondent as plaintiff for a decree of mandatory injunction for the removal of the name of the petitioner herein, who is the 3rd defendant, from the membership register of the Paramekkavu Devaswom, on the ground that the 3rd defendant, who belongs to 'Veluthedan' caste is not coming within the definition of 'Savarna Hindu' and therefore, he is not qualified and entitled to be a member of the 'Paramekkavu Devaswom'. Along with the suit, Exhibit P1 I.A. No.10026 of 2013 was filed seeking an order of temporary injunction, thereby restraining the 3rd defendant from participating in any of the trusts, committees or administrative body of the 'Paramekkavu Devaswom', or from contesting the election to any of such bodies or to be a member in any of such bodies. Even though the petitioner and defendants 1 and 2 have seriously challenged the said I.A. through counter affidavit, the court below, through Exhibit P5 order, allowed the I.A., thereby restraining the petitioner herein, through an order of temporary injunction, from contesting the election and from holding any post in the new governing body of the 'Paramekkavu Devaswom'.

3. The petitioner has challenged Exhibit P5 order, through C.M.A.No.119 of 2013 before the District Court, Thrissur. The learned Ist Additional District Judge, Thrissur has approved the findings entered by the trial court in Exhibit P5 and has virtually recited the order and dismissed the C.M.A., through Exhibit P6 judgment. The said judgment is under challenge.

4. Heard Adv. Sri. Dinesh R. Shenoy, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Adv. Sri. Anchal C. Vijayan, the learned counsel for the 1st respondent and Adv. Sri. M. Ramesh Chander, the learned Standing Counsel for respondents 2 and 3.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that the petitioner has been a member of the committee of the 'Paramekkavu Devaswom', right from the year 1987 onwards and he has officiated as leader of many of the committees of the 'Paramekkavu Devaswom' and he has been actively in the leadership for conducting the 'Thrissur Pooram' Festival every year, for the last many years. It is also pointed out that he is the elected Vice President of the 'Paramekkavu Devaswom'. It is argued that he is a 'Malayalee Savarna Hindu' within the meaning of Clause 3 of Exhibit P4 By-laws of the 'Paramekkavu Devaswom'. It is further argued that, in order to enter into a finding that such a person cannot be treated as a 'Malayalee Savarna Hindu', both the courts below have limited the consideration of the aspect by placing heavy reliance on the fact that the sect of 'Veluthedathu Nairs' are being treated as an Other Backward Community in the case of Government appointments, appointments to public sector undertakings, and in the matter of eduction, based on the constitutional perspective. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, such a view taken by both the courts below is apparently unfounded and incorrect. It is also argued that such a view is not palatable or digestible in this 21st century, when we had wiped out the most accursed system of untouchability from this great Nation. The said arguments have been fully endorsed and supported by the learned counsel for respondents 2 and 3.

6. Per contra, the learned counsel for the 1st respondent has argued that the petitioner being a 'Veluthedathu Nair' is of a lower caste when compared to 'Nairs' and at any stretch of imagination, the petitioner cannot be treated as a 'Malayalee Savarna Hindu'. It is argued that it is a very special provision mentioned in the By-laws for a qualification to become a member of the 'Par