2015 Supreme(Ker) 494
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P.N. RAVINDRAN & ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JJ.
KALLIPARAMBIL RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & ORS. - PETITIONERS
Vs.
THE SECRETARY, COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD, THRISSUR - RESPONDENT
D.B.P.No.62 of 2014
Decided On : 5.6.2015
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : SRI. P. RADHAKRISHNAN (1), SRI. NELSON JOSEPH.
For the Respondent: SRI. KRISHNA MENON, SC, COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD, SRI P. RAMACHANDRAN, AMICUS CURIAE.
The main legal principle established in the judgment is the recognition and enforcement of hereditary rights for the appointment of religious positions in the temple, based on historical evidence and traditional practices.
Headnote:
APPOINTMENT - Velichappadu in Machadu Thiruvanikkavu Temple - Ext.C1, Ext.C2, Ext.C3, Ext.C4, Ext.C5 - The judgment discusses the appointment of Velichappadu and Komaram in the temple, emphasizing the hereditary rights of the Vattekkattu family for the appointment as Velichappadu and Komaram. The court directs the Cochin Devaswom Board to appoint one among the members of Vattekkattu family as the Velichappadu in Machadu Thiruvanikkavu Temple.
Fact of the Case:
The case involves the appointment of Velichappadu and Komaram in Machadu Thiruvanikkavu Temple. The dispute arises from the appointment of individuals from the Vattekkattu family to these positions.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Vattekkattu family has hereditary rights for the appointment as Velichappadu and Komaram in the temple. The court directed the Cochin Devaswom Board to appoint a member of the Vattekkattu family as the Velichappadu in the temple.
Issues: The main issue was the dispute over the appointment of Velichappadu and Komaram in the temple, with one party claiming hereditary rights and the other party contesting the necessity for such appointments.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the historical evidence and documents such as Ext.C1, Ext.C2, Ext.C3, Ext.C4, and Ext.C5 to establish the hereditary rights of the Vattekkattu family for the appointment as Velichappadu and Komaram. The court also emphasized the necessity for honoring the tradition followed in the temple for over 200 years.
Final Decision: The court directed the Cochin Devaswom Board to appoint one among the members of Vattekkattu family as the Velichappadu in Machadu Thiruvanikkavu Temple.
Anil K. Narendran, J.
D.B.P.No.62 of 2014 arises out of Complaint No.327 of 2013 filed by one Kallipparambil Ramachandran Nair and Complaint No.22 of 2014 filed by Santheendran, is relating to the appointment of Velichappadu in Machadu Thiruvanikkavu Temple in Thiruvilwamala Group of the Cochin Devaswom Board.
2. In Complaint Nos.327 of 2013 and 22 of 2014, the Honourable Ombudsman has filed C.D.B.Report No.69 of 2014, which was followed by Additional Report No.166 of 2014.
3. In Complaint No.327 of 2013, it is alleged that for the last 15 years, the post of Velichappadu in the Machadu Thiruvanikkavu Temple is lying vacant and the rituals are being conducted by the Velichappadu of the neighbouring Kumarankinattukara Temple and since there is a break of 15 years, the karaima right has ceased to exist. According to the complainant, one person from the karaima family has come forward claiming appointment as Velichappadu. The complainant has also applied for appointment as Velichappadu and he prays for appropriate action.
4. On the other hand, in Complaint No.22 of 2014 it is stated that, the Komaram in the Machadu Thiruvanikkavu Temple can be appointed only from the members of Vattekkattu family. The complainant is a member of that family and other members of the family have no objection in appointing him as Komaram. According to the complainant, there was a discussion in the office of the President of the Cochin Devaswom Board. It is also stated that the post is kept vacant for a number of years, that the last Komaram Vattekkattu Balakrishnan Nair died in the year 1998 and that on a 'Prasana Vidhi' held in the temple it was found that the Komaram could continue in the temple only after reconstruction of the temple is completed and all the rituals are done. It is stated that the nephew of late Balakrishnan Nair has applied for appointment as Komaram, but no decision has been taken by the Board so far. On 15.1.2013, a letter was received from the Devaswom Officer to inform whether any member of the Vattekkattu family is willing to act as the Velichappadu, that Ramankutty and Sathyanarayanan had given consent for appointing the complainant in Complaint No.22 of 2014 as Kshethra Komaram, but no action was taken by the Devaswom Board and it was informed that the post is being advertised. The complainant states that as per the custom, so long as any member of the Vattekkattu family is willing to do the work, his request has to be considered.
5. The Secretary of the Cochin Devaswom Board has filed a common affidavit in both the complaints stating that, the matter was discussed in the Board meeting held on 30.1.2014 and it was decided that for the present year, what was done in the previous year should be followed and subsequently the matter can be considered after perusing the records. Sri Sankaranarayan, the Velichappadu in Kumarankinattukara temple has vacated the post on account of old age and he has requested that his son be appointed as the Velichappadu and the Board has accepted that request. As late Sankaranarayanan was doing the duties of Komaram in the Kumarankinattukara temple, his son Sri Sreekrishnan was asked to do the duty of Komaram in Thiruvanikkavu temple as well. It is also stated that in Thiruvanikkavu temple, the need for Velichappadu is only for four days and for the last 15 years, it was being done by Sri Sankaranarayanan.
6. The complainant in Complaint No.22 of 2014 has filed a counter to the affidavit filed on behalf of the Devaswom board pointing out that there is no dispute with regard to karaima right of Vattekkattu family and a letter was also given to nominate a member of the family to be appointed as the Komaram of the Temple. In 2006, Sri Narayanankutty of Vattekkattu family had requested for appointment as Komaram and no action was taken by the Board. On 15.1.2013, the Board had asked to nominate a person of Vattekkattu Tharavadu to be appointed as the Komaram and the members of the family wanted time to