Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Online)(KER) 4978

HIGH COURT OF KERALA
SYAM KUMAR V.M., J
POOVARANY DEVASOM BHARANASAMITHI TRUST – Appellant
Versus
K N NARAYANAN NAMBOOTHIRI – Respondent
FAO 10/2025

Advocates:
P.C.HARIDAS V. ARJUN, Abraham George Jacob, R1 P.B.SUBRAMANYAN, SHAHNA(K/001380/2023), M.R.ATHUL(K/2031/2024), S.V.BALAKRISHNA IYER (SR.)(B-75), R4 SABU GEORGE(K/000711/1998), MANU VYASAN PETER(K/000652/2013), MEERA P.(K/000191/2019)

The court prioritized the resolution of the pending appeal over the appointment of a receiver, emphasizing expediency and justice.

Headnote:(A) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Section 151 - Appeal against order appointing a receiver for temple administration - The Subordinate Judges Court allowed the appointment of a receiver for managing the temple properties, which was challenged in this F.A.O. - The court noted attempts for amicable resolution were unsuccessful. (Paras 2, 4)

(B) Justice and Expediency - The court concluded that justice would be better served by allowing the parties to pursue the pending appeal before the Sub Court rather than appointing a receiver, directing the Sub Court to expedite the appeal process. (Paras 5, 6)

Facts of the case:
The appeal challenges the order appointing a receiver for the administration of temple properties, with attempts for amicable resolution failing. The Sub Court had concluded that a receiver should be appointed.

Findings of Court:
The court directed the Sub Court to expedite the pending appeal and maintain the status quo until the appeal is disposed of.

Issues: The main issue was whether the appointment of a receiver was necessary or if the pending appeal could be resolved without such an appointment.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of allowing the Sub Court to resolve the pending appeal, indicating that appointing a receiver was not warranted at this stage.

Result: F.A.O. is disposed of as above.

Table of Content
1. receiver appointment allowed (Para 2 , 3)
2. attempts for amicable resolution (Para 4)
3. larger questions on merits (Para 5)
4. directing sub court to expedite (Para 6)

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 28^th day of January, 2025 This appeal is filed challenging the order dated 21.12.2024 in I.A.No.11 of 2024 in A.S.No.79 of 2023 of the Subordinate Judges Court, Pala. The said A.S. has been filed challenging the judgment and decree dated 04.12.2023 in O.S. No.64 of 2018 of the Munsiff Court, Pala.

2. I.A.No.11 of 2024 was filed by the 1^st respondent seeking to appoint a receiver for administration of the plaint schedule properties and management of the temple situated therein. The Sub Court had vide the impugned order concluded that a receiver is to be appointed. The I.A. was allowed and a panel of receivers was directed to be produced. The said order is challenged in this F.A.O.

3. Heard Sri.P.C.Haridas, Advocate for the appellants, Sri. Abraham George Jacob, Advocate, for the 1st respondent. and Sri.S.V.Balakrishna Iyer, Senior Advocate instructed by Sri.Sabu George, Advocate for the 4^th respondent.

4. In the course of hearing the F.A.O., parties made attempts to resolve the dispute amicably and considered various arrangements that could be put in place for administration of the temple that would meet the concerns of both sides and thus would avoid the need to appoint a receiver. However, the said attempt did not fructify.

5. After hearing both sides, I note that for the disposal of this F.A.O. based on the contentions put forth, I may have to invariably dwell upon larger questions touching on the merits of the matter, which is now pending consideration in appeal before the Sub Court. Hence, in the facts and circumstances of the case, I conclude that justice would be better served, if the parties are relegated to pursue the pending appeal before the Sub Court and this F.A.O. can be disposed of directing the Sub Court, Pala, to expeditiously consider the pending appeal viz., A.S.No.79 of 2023 within a specified time period.

6. Accordingly, the Sub Court, Pala, is hereby directed to consider and dispose of A.S.No.79 of 2023 pending before it in accordance with law, at any rate, before 31.03.2025. Until such disposal, the status quo in the matter shall continue. All contentions of the parties are left open.

F.A.O. is disposed of as above. I.A.No.1 of 2025 shall stand closed.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2025 Supreme(Online)(KER) 4978

HIGH COURT OF KERALASYAM KUMAR V.M., JPOOVARANY DEVASOM BHARANASAMITHI TRUST – AppellantVersusK N NARAYANAN NAMBOOTHIRI – RespondentFAO 10/2025

The court prioritized the resolution of the pending appeal over the appointment of a receiver, emphasizing expediency and justice.

HIGH COURT OF KERALA
SYAM KUMAR V.M., J
POOVARANY DEVASOM BHARANASAMITHI TRUST – Appellant
Versus
K N NARAYANAN NAMBOOTHIRI – Respondent
FAO 10/2025