Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI, J
Ithithanam Elamkavu Devaswom – Appellant
Versus
Jaimon. M.C. S/o. Chellappan Nair – Respondent
ORDER :
The revision petitioners are respondents 1 to 5, 10 to 12, 14, and 16 in O.P.(Others) No.7 of 2022 on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Kottayam. O.P. (Others) No.7 of 2022 is an application filed by respondents 1 to 3 under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure for grant of leave to institute the suit.
2. Briefs facts necessary for the disposal of the revision are as follows: The leave under Section 92 is sought to frame a settlement for the 1st respondent/Devaswom to remove respondents 3, 4, and 9 to 17 and people under them from the administration of the 1st respondent Devaswom, 5th respondent temple, and respondents 6 to 8 to appoint new trustees or administrators to the 1st respondent Devaswom and its institution and for other reliefs (the parties are referred to as they appear in the court below). The 5th respondent/temple was founded more than 200 years ago by the Hindu public of Ithithanam. All denominations and communities of Hindus worshipped in the temple as of right. It has been recognised as a public temple from its inception. An agreement was entered for the administration of the temple and registered as document No.6/1960 before the S.R.O., Changancher
The court affirmed that leave under Section 92 of the C.P.C. can be granted based on a prima facie case, emphasizing the need for equitable administration of public trusts.
The court emphasized the necessity of establishing a clear and substantive interest and status of representation in public trust matters under Section 92 CPC to qualify for leave to sue.
The court established that for a suit under Section 92 of the CPC, it is essential to demonstrate a public charitable trust, a breach of trust, and appropriate relief sought, emphasizing the protecti....
Establishing a public trust under CPC Section 92 requires clear prima facie evidence of trust existence; without this, applications are not maintainable.
High Court's Article 227 supervisory jurisdiction barred from rejecting plaint when Order VII Rule 11 CPC offers specific statutory remedy, appealable under Section 96; alternative CPC remedies impos....
Art.227 jurisdiction barred when CPC O.7 R.11 remedy available for plaint rejection.
Writ petitions concerning the administration of religious institutions must adhere to the statutory framework provided by relevant laws, rather than seeking relief through Article 226.
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
