Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(KER) 11386
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN, J
SREE RAKTHESWARI DEVI KSHETHRA YOGAM – Appellant
Versus
THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE – Respondent
WP(C) 25968/2023
B.PRAMOD, BIJU VIGNESWAR AYYAPPADAS, Madhu Radhakrishnan, R.VIJAYACHANDRAN(K/1124/2000), M.D.JOSEPH(K/839/2008), DEEPAK ASHOK KUMAR(K/1624/2018), NELSON JOSEPH(K/380/2007)
Only family members of the Madavana family can manage the temple, and non-family members cannot interfere with the elected committee's administration.
Headnote:(A) Travancore Cochin Literary, Scientific, and Charitable Societies Act, 1955 - The petitioners, as President and Secretary of the Temple Committee, assert their right to manage the temple against interference from non-family members. The Munsiff Court recognized their entitlement to administer the temple, but the 3rd respondent retains ownership rights. (Paras 1-15)
(B) Rights of Management - The court emphasized that only family members of the Madavana family can be members of the Trust, and non-family members cannot claim rights to administer the temple. (Paras 11-15)
(C) Legal Standing - The court ruled that until the Munsiff's judgment is set aside, the petitioners are entitled to manage the temple affairs, and any interference by others is unauthorized. (Paras 12-15)
Facts of the case:
The petitioners, representing the Temple Committee, filed a writ petition seeking protection against interference from non-family members in the management of the temple, following a decree from the Munsiff Court recognizing their rights.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the petitioners are entitled to manage the temple affairs as per the Munsiff Court's decree, and any interference by non-family members is unauthorized.
Issues: The main issues were the legitimacy of the petitioners' claim to manage the temple and the authority of non-family members to interfere in temple affairs.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Munsiff Court's decree grants the petitioners the right to manage the temple, and non-family members cannot claim such rights.
Result: Petition disposed of.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. temple owned by madavana family (Para 2) |
| 2. petitioners filed suit for management (Para 3) |
| 3. election conducted for committee (Para 4) |
| 4. respondents filed suit for injunction (Para 5) |
| 5. petitioners attacked while visiting temple (Para 6 , 7) |
| 6. petitioners assert their rights (Para 8) |
| 7. respondents claim authority (Para 9 , 10) |
| 8. only family members can manage (Para 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 9. petitioners entitled to manage temple (Para 15) |
JUDGMENT
The petitioners contend that they are the President and Secretary of Sree Rakteshwari Devi Kshetra Yogam Temple Committee, a Society registered under the Travancore Cochin Literary, Scientific, and Charitable Societies Act , 1955. They assert that the Society was formed for proper and better administration of Sree Rakteshwari Devi Kshetra Yogam Temple, Alappuzha.
2. According to the petitioner, the temple is owned by the ‘Madavana family,’ and the 3rd respondent, being the eldest member of the family, is in charge of the administration and management of the temple. They contend that respondents 7 and 8 are not family members; however, they are permitted by the 3rd respondent to intermeddle with the affairs of the temple. This, according to the petitioners, is an illegal exercise.
3. This led the Kshethra Yogam and the 2nd petitioner, who is the President, to approach the Principal Munsiff Court, Alappuzha, and institute O.S.No.617 of 2019. The suit was filed for a declaration that the Temple Committee is entitled to manage the administration and affairs of the temple and all its assets. The petitioners assert that the suit was tried along with two other cases, and by Ext.P3 judgment dated 31.01.2023, a suit filed by the petitioners 1 and 2 was partly decreed declaring that the 1st petitioner temple committee is entitled to administer and manage the affairs of the temple. The learned Munsiff, however, made it clear that the 3rd respondent herein, who was arrayed as the 1st defendant in the suit, cannot be interdicted as he is the true owner.
4. The petitioners contend that, later election was conducted to the 1st petitioner committee, and as is evident from Ext.P5, petitioners 2 and 3 were elected as President and Secretary of the Temple Committee in the annual general body meeting, which was held on 28.6.2023. The grievance of the petitioners is that the respondents 3 to 8 are not permitting the petitioners 2 and 3 to assume charge and take over the administration of the temple, though they have no legitimate right to do so.
5. In the meantime, respondents 3, 7, and 8 instituted O.S.No.515 of 2023 before the Munsiff Court, Alappuzha, seeking a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the petitioners 2 and 3 and others from administering the temple. It is contended that no prohibitory injunction was granted.
6. When the respondents interfered with the affairs of the temple and prevented the petitioners from assuming charge as the office bearers of the Temple Committee and started threatening them, they approached the 1st respondent and submitted Ext.P7 representation seeking protection. It is further alleged that on 6.7.2023, when they attempted to visit the temple, they were attacked, and consequently, Ext.P9 FIR was registered. It is on these assertions that this writ petition is filed seeking issuance of directions to respondents 1 and 2 to afford effective protection of the petitioners for taking over the administration and management charge of the temple.
7. A counter affidavit has been filed by respondents 3 to 8, controverting the assertions in the petition. It is stated that the temple is situated on an item of property owned by the mother of the 3rd respondent. The administration of the temple is presently being carried out by an unregistered voluntary association by the name ‘Sree Rakteswari Devi Kshetra Yogam,’ and the present office bearers are respondents 7 and 8, who are Secretary and President, respectively, of the elected committee. The above association
