JUDGMENT

The second defendant in the suit, O.S. No.69 of

2015, of the Additional Sub Court, Kollam, who is the second appellant in A.S. No.17/2023 pending before the Additional District Court-II, Kollam, is the petitioner herein. The suit, O.S. No.69/2015, was allowed vide Ext.P3 judgment declaring that the temple in question is a private religious Trust; that the temple and properties are governed by the provisions of the partition deed dated 9-3-1103 M.E. and restraining the defendants from constituting a committee and from interfering with the administration of the temple and the properties described in the plaint schedule. An injunction sought for by the plaintiffs vide relief no.B, seeking to restrain the defendants from obstructing or interfering with the administration and management of the temple property by the plaintiffs was refused. The defendants filed appeal as A.S. No.17/2023 challenging Ext.P3 judgment as against the reliefs granted afore referred. The plaintiffs also filed an appeal, A.S. No.15/2023, challenging refusal of relief B above referred. The plaintiffs filed Ex.P7 application in the appeal seeking an interim injunction, more or less in terms with relief no.B, seeking to restrain the respondents in the appeal (defendants in the suit) from interfering with the first plaintiff carrying on the administration and management of the temple and properties. Similarly, Ext.P10 application was preferred by the defendants in the appeal, A.S. No.15/2023, seeking to restrain the plaintiffs/appellants from obstructing and interfering with the management and administration of the temple by the petitioners/defendants. The respondents in A.S. No.15/2023 also filed Ext.P12 application seeking production of certain documents. By virtue of the impugned Ext.P14 common order, Ext.P7 application was allowed, Ext.P10 application was dismissed and Ext.P12 application for production of documents was allowed in part.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2. 3. It is interesting to note that the second defendant in the suit, who is the second appellant in A.S. No.17/2023 and the second respondent in A.S. No.15/2023 alone had chosen to file the instant Original Petition, presumably for the reason that he is the sole member of the family, to which the temple which has been declared as a private Trust, belongs. 4. Having heard the learned counsel appearing on both sides, this Court cannot find any serious illegality or infirmity with respect to the impugned Ext.P14 order. The following aspects are taken note of:

The case espoused by the petitioner, along with other defendants in the suit, is that the administration of the temple by the family in terms of the partition deed of the year 1103 M.E. was got substituted in the year 1107 by constituting a committee for such administration and accordingly, the administration of the temple and the properties are being carried on by such committees constituted from time to time. The present committee constituted of the defendants was formed in the year 1996 and even according to the defendants' case, the period of the committee is three years, which expired in the year 1999. This Court notice that the case set up by the defendants based on administration by the committee has been found against by Ext.P3 judgment, which is under challenge in the two appeals pending before the Additional District Court. It is also true that the case set up by the first respondent/plaintiff on the basis of Ext.A3 decision, based upon which she claims title for administering the temple, was also frowned upon by the learned Sub Judge in Ext.P3 judgment. It is on the strength of such finding that the injunction sought for vide relief no.B to the plaint was refused by the learned Sub Judge. However, it remains the fact that, in the suit which commenced in the year 1996, there was interim order all along, enabling the first respondent herein (plaintiff in the s