Back
2022 Supreme(Online)(KER) 24205
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN
TUESDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF JANUARY 2022 / 14TH POUSHA, 1943
WP(C) NO. 11020 OF 2017
PETITIONER/S:
C.R. GOPALAKRISHNAN
S/O C.K.RAMA IYYER, CHAKKINKAL MADAM, OOTHRALIKKAVU, P.O.
KUMARANELLUR, VADAKKANCHERY THRISSUR DIST.
BY ADVS.
SRI.M.P.ASHOK KUMAR
SMT.BINDU SREEDHAR
SRI.P.C.GOPINATH
SMT.MANJU S. PANICKER
RESPONDENT/S:
1
COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, THRISSUR-1.
2
THE DEVASWOM OFFICER
SREE RUDHIRAMAHAKALIKKAVU (UTHRALIKKAVU( TEMPLE,
ERKAKKAT, THRISSUR-1
Addl. R3
C.K.RAMA IYER
S/O C.K.KRISHNA IYER, AGED 92 YEARS, RESIDING AT
CHAKKINGAL MADAM, KUMARANELLOOR P.O., VADAKKANCHERY –
THRISSUR – 679552
(ADDITIONAL R3 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 09.11.2021
IN I.A.No.01/2021 IN W.P.(C) No.11020/20217
BY ADV ASIF N
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
04.01.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 11020 OF 2017
2
Karaima rights are to be decided on the basis of the documents available with the Devaswom Board and not with reference to the title deeds of the Madam.
Headnote:
KARAYMA RIGHTS - SUCCESSION - CUSTOM
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, the son of the incumbent Karaima Shanti at Shree Rudhiramahakalikkavu Temple, challenged the order rejecting his request to be appointed as the Karaima Shanthi, considering the advanced age and ailments of his father. The request was rejected solely on the ground that no mention regarding Karaima rights was seen in the documents of the Chakkingal Madam.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that Karaima rights are to be decided on the basis of the documents available with the Devaswom Board and not with reference to the title deeds of the Madam. The court also noted that the petitioner's father's name was included in the pathivu register of the Uthralikkavu Temple.
Issues: Whether Karaima rights are to be decided on the basis of the documents available with the Devaswom Board or with reference to the title deeds of the Madam.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the Annexure – R1(A) Guidelines formulated by the Devaswom Board, which do not contemplate decision regarding Karaima rights to be based on title deeds.
Final Decision: The court set aside the order rejecting the petitioner's request and directed the first respondent to reconsider the request and pass fresh orders thereon within six weeks of receipt of a copy of the judgment.
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 4th day of January, 2022 The petitioner is the son of the incumbent Karaima Shanti at Shree Rudhiramahakalikkavu (Uthralikkavu) Temple. As per custom, the senior most male member of Chakkingal Madam enjoys the right and privilege of performing Shanti service in the temple. The Karaima rights gets transferred by succession from the senior most male member to the next senior most male member. The petitioner’s father, the third respondent herein, who is now aged 92 years had submitted Ext.P4 dated 12.04.2014, requesting to appoint the petitioner as the Karaima Shanthi, considering the advanced age and ailments of the third respondent. The request was rejected by Ext.P7 order for the sole reason that, no mention regarding Karaima rights is seen in the documents of the Chakkingal Madam. The challenge against Ext.P7 is on the premise that, Karaima rights is to be decided on the basis of the documents available with the Devaswom Board and not with reference to the title deeds of the Madam.
2. Learned Standing Counsel for the Devaswom Board submitted that, since disputes of similar nature had arisen in various temples, the Board has formulated Annexure – R1(A) Guidelines dealing with the rights and service conditions of Karaima employees. It is pointed out that as per Clauses 8 and 21 of the guidelines, there is no requirement of the Karaima right being mentioned in the title deed. It is submitted that the petitioner’s father’s name is included in the pathivu register of the Uthralikkavu Temple.
3. Having heard the learned Counsel on either side and taking into account the fact that even as the guidelines formulated by the Board, does not contemplate decision regarding Karaima rights to be based on title deeds, Ext.P7 order cannot be sustained.
In the result, Ext.P7 is set aside. The Writ Petition is disposed of directing the first respondent to reconsider the request for appointing petitioner as the Karaima Shanthi of Shree Rudhiramahakalikkavu Temple in the place of the third respondent and to pass fresh orders thereon.
While taking the decision, the fact that the request was initially made in the year 2014 should be taken into account, to ensure that petitioner is not put to prejudice by the delay and subsequent developments. The decision, as directed above, shall be taken within six weeks of receipt of a copy of this judgment, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly.
Sd/-
V.G.ARUN JUDGE
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 11020/2017 PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPLY GIVEN BY THE COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD UNDER THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT DATED 15/7/2015 EXHIBIT P2 PHOTOCOPY OF THE IDENTITY CARD ISSUED BY THE COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD TO THE PETITIONER'S FATHER DATED 25/11/2009 EXHIBIT P3 PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD SANCTIONING RS.
1000/-DATED 31/7/2006 EXHIBIT P4 PHOTOCOPY OF THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER'S FATHER DATED 12/11/2014 EXHIBIT P5 PHOTOCOPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE PETITIONER'S FATHER DATED 28/2/2015 EXHIBIT P6 PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE KSHETHRAM THANTHRI DATED 18/11/2014 EXHIBIT P7 PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER NO.M4.14796/2014 DATED 17/2/2017 ISSUED BY THE COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD.
RESPONDENT’S EXHIBITS ANNEXURE R1(A) TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.M4.11703/2021 DATED
07.10.2021 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT ALONG WITH GUIDELINES REGARDING THE SERVICE CONDITIONS OF KARAYMA EMPLOYEES
