Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(KER) 11783
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SYAM KUMAR V.M.
FRIDAY, THE 4 TH DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 14TH CHAITHRA, 1947 FAO NO.1 OF 2025 ARISING OUT OF THE ORDER DATED 25.11.2024 IN I.A.NO.7/2024 IN AS NO.56/2023 OF SUB COURT, ATTINGAL APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS: 1 KOLLAMPUZHA BHAGAVATHY TEMPLE, ATTINGAL VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY M. SASI, AGED 70 YEARS S/O MATHU, AMMU NIVAS, NEAR KOLLAMPUZHA PARAVAN VILAKATHU BHAGAVATHY TEMPLE, ATTINGAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 695101
2 M.SASI AGED 70 YEARS S/O MATHU, AMMU NIVAS, NEAR KOLLAMPUZHA PARAVAN VILAKATHU BHAGAVATHY TEMPLE, ATTINGAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 695101 BY ADVS.
MANU RAMACHANDRAN R.RAJESH (VARKALA)
M.KIRANLAL T.S.SARATH SAMEER M NAIR SAILAKSHMI MENON SMT.AKHILA B.
RESPONDENTS:
1 BIJU KUMAR AGED 49 YEARS S/O CHELLAPPAN, LAKSHMI VILASAM, MANOMOHANA VILASAM ROAD, NEAR OLD AGE HOME, VALIAYAKUNNU, ATTINGAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 695101
2 SASIKUMAR, AGED 48 YEARS S/O CHELLAPPAN, SREESYLAM, KODUMON, MEENPADU KSHETRAM ROAD, ATTINGAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 695101 BY ADV G.S. REGHUNATH, R1 THIS FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDERS HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04.04.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING.
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : ADVS. MANU RAMACHANDRAN R.RAJESH (VARKALA) M.KIRANLAL T.S.SARATH SAMEER M NAIR SAILAKSHMI MENON SMT.AKHILA B.
For the Respondent: ADV G.S.REGHUNATH, R1
The appointment of a receiver must be based on judicial discretion, requiring proof of a prima facie case and immediate danger to the property.
Headnote:
(A) Code of Civil Procedure - Order XL Rule 1 - Appointment of receiver - The plaintiffs sought to appoint a receiver for the management of a temple property, alleging illegal actions by the defendants. The Sub Court appointed the 1st defendant as receiver with restrictions to ensure accountability. The court emphasized the need for caution in appointing receivers and the necessity of protecting the rights of all parties involved. (Paras 4, 10, 11, 12)
(B) Discretion of the Court - The appointment of a receiver is a matter of judicial discretion, requiring proof of a prima facie case and an element of danger or loss demanding immediate action. (Paras 7, 8)
Facts of the case:
The plaintiffs filed a suit to declare the eldest male member of the family as the rightful manager of the temple property. The defendants, who had been in possession since 2003, were accused of attempting to change the temple's character and demolishing its structure.
Findings of Court:
The Sub Court found the need to appoint a receiver to protect the temple's interests while allowing the defendants to manage day-to-day affairs under strict conditions.
Issues: The main issues included the legitimacy of the plaintiffs' claims and the appropriateness of appointing the 1st defendant as receiver.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the appointment of a receiver must be based on sound discretion, taking into account the rights of all parties and the necessity of immediate action to prevent irreparable harm.
Result: The F.A.O. is dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
1. This appeal is filed challenging the order dated 25.11.2024 in I.A.No.7 of 2024 in A.S.No.56 of 2023 of Sub Court, Attingal. Appellants were the petitioners in the I.A. Respondents were the respondents therein.
2. O.S.No.221 of 2019 was filed before the Munsiff Court, Attingal by the appellants (hereinafter referred to as 'the plaintiffs') inter alia seeking to declare that the eldest male member (Karanavar) of Paravanvilakom family is the person having right to manage the plaint schedule property viz., Kollampuzha Paravanvilakathu Bhagavathy Temple and its properties. Ancillary prayers including a prayer for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the respondents herein (hereinafter referred to as 'the defendants') from interfering or causing obstruction to the Karanavar from managing/administering the plaint schedule property was also sought. The suit was decreed by the Munsiff Court vide judgment and decree dated 13.11.2023. Challenging the same, the defendants filed an appeal numbered as A.S.No.56 of 2023 before the Sub Court, Attingal and obtained a stay. The plaintiffs filed O.P.(C) No.1674 of 2024 before this Court, which was disposed of vide judgment dated 13.09.2024 directing expeditious consideration and disposal of I.A.No.7 of 2024 in A.S.No.56 of 2023 filed by the plaintiffs which sought for the appointment of a receiver for temporary administration of the plaint schedule property. The Sub Court heard the I.A. and rendered an order allowing the I.A., but by appointing defendant No.1 as the receiver. The said order is impugned in this F.A.O.
3. Heard Sri.Manu Ramachandran, Advocate, for the appellants/plaintiffs and Sri.G.S.Reghunath, Advocate for the 1st respondent/1st defendant.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants/plaintiffs contended that the order impugned is perverse erroneous and unsustainable in law. The status of the temple as a private temple had been affirmed and declared by this Court. A copy of the judgment dated 13.02.2019 in A.S.No.35 of 2002 which was filed challenging the judgment and decree in O.S.No.76 of 1993 is brought to my notice in this respect. The attempt, it is alleged, is to topple the said settled position. The defendants have created a society with the oblique motive of changing the character of the temple. The court erred in overlooking the fact that after obtaining stay of execution of the decree of the trial court, the defendants had demolished the temple building and had registered society with their henchmen for administering the temple. The said illegal activities were being perpetuated by the defendants on the strength of the interim stay order and having possession thereof. The appellate court ought to have found that it was highly necessary in the interests of justice to take steps to protect the temple and its properties. The attempt made by the defendants was to change the nature of the temple by inducting strangers into its administration. The reasoning in the impugned order concerning the additional financial burden that would be caused in appointing a third person as receiver is misplaced. It was open to the court to appoint an official receiver or the 2nd plaintiff as the receiver. The court ought to have directed the defendants to produce the books of account of the temple and perused it before arriving at a conclusion regarding the financial implications. The course of action adopted by the court is contrary to law. Though the Court was convinced about the need to appoint a receiver, erred in appointing the 1st defendant who is the perpetrator of illegalities as the receiver. Irreparable damage and mischief will be created by the defendants by inducting strangers, collecting public money and causing destruction of the temple in the name of renovation. Earlier, JCB had been used and the temple demolished while the appeal was pending under the garb of renovation. This was a valid and substantial reason to seek appointment of a receiver. The objective of ap
