Back
2021 Supreme(Online)(KER) 48757
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
V. G. Arun, J
VANCHEESWARA IYER @ RAJA – Appellant
Versus
P.V.NARAYANASWAMY – Respondent
OP(C)/1921/2020
SRI.ALEXANDER JOSEPH SRI.M.V.SABU SMT.AKHILASREE BHASKARAN
The appointment of a Receiver is valid in managing religious institution affairs even when challenged by members of an unincorporated body under established legal definitions.
Headnote:
Receiver - Administration - Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1950 - Sections 2(b), 61(6) - The court upheld the appointment of a Receiver to manage a religious institution's affairs, emphasizing the definitions of 'Hindu Religious Endowment' and 'institution' under the Act.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioners challenged court orders appointing a Receiver and injuncting them from interfering with the Thrikkariyoor Brahmana Samooham's administration due to alleged misappropriation of its properties.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appointment of a Receiver was justified to manage the properties of the Samooham in light of alleged misfeasance and lack of clear governance structures.
Issues: Whether the suit was maintainable without the Thrikkariyoor Brahmana Samooha Madhom, the justification for granting a prohibitory injunction, jurisdiction issues, and competence of the trust to file the suit.
Ratio Decidendi: An unincorporated body cannot be treated as a juristic person, and the Munsiff's Court had jurisdiction under the Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Endowments Act.
Final Decision: The original petitions are dismissed.
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 21st day of December, 2021 Petitioners are the defendants in O.S.No.45 of 2020 pending on the files of the Munsiff's Court, Kothamangalam. They are aggrieved by the order in I.A.No.5 of 2020 appointing a Receiver to manage the properties and the spiritual and temporal affairs of the Thrikkariyoor Brahmana Samooham and Thrikkariyoor Brahmana Samooha Madhom. The petitioners have also challenged the order in I.A.No.6 of 2020, injuncting them from interfering with the administration and affairs of the Thrikkariyoor Brahmana Samooham and Thrikkariyoor Brahmana Samooha Madhom and its assets.
2. The averments in the suit and the interlocutory applications are to the following effect;
The Thrikkariyoor Mahadeva Temple was under the administration of Vadakkumkoor Rajas during olden times. The Rajas brought Tamil Brahmins to aid them in the administrative and allied activities of the temple. The Brahmins thus brought down were provided with landed properties and other assets. The members of the Brahmin community congregated into a 'Samooham' and established a Samooha Madhom for carrying out their activities. Earlier, the Samooham had extensive lands in its possession. With efflux of time, the assets got reduced. At present, the assets are confined to plaint A, B and C schedule immovable properties, D schedule movables and E schedule bank deposits and endowments. There are no written bylaws for management of the Samooham, Samooha Madhom or its assets. The customary practice is for a member from the Samooham to take charge as Kizhikaran on the evening of 'Sastha preethi' festival every year and to continue till next year's Sastha preethi. At the time of assuming charge, the Kizhikaran has to make a security deposit known as 'Kizhipanam'. Before handing over charge, the incumbent Kizhikaran has to place the accounts of his period before the members of the Samooham. Before the new Kizhikaran has to place the accounts of his period will be verified and the Kizhipanam returned after deducting the liabilities, if any incurred. The name 'Kizhikaran' was later replaced with the term 'President' and the person assisting the Kizhikaran came to be called 'Secretary'. The first and second petitioners assumed charge of Kizhikaran (President) and assistant (Secretary) in the year 2012, after the Sastha preethi festival held on 14.01.2012. After assuming charge, they committed various acts of misappropriation and even alienated the immovable properties of the Samooham. The immovable property was transferred in the name of the third petitioner, who is none other than the wife of the first petitioner, as per Sale Deed No.3714 of 2015 of Kothamangalam SRO. Later, the third petitioner executed Gift Deed bearing No.1811 of 2016 in favour of petitioners 1 and 2, in their alleged capacity as President and Secretary of the Samooham. Under that document, give a new character was attempted to be given to the Thrikkariyoor Brahmana Samooham, by stating it to be under the Kerala Tamil Brahmana Samooham. In spite of objections by the members of the Samooham, the petitioners refused to relinquish power and continued with their illegal activities. Faced with such a situation, the members of Samooham convened a meeting on 05.01.2020 and passed a resolution to take necessary action against the illegal activities of the petitioners. Based on the decision, the members of the Samooham constituted a trust by name 'Thrikkariyoor Brahmana Samooham Trust' and got the same registered. The trust has its own written bylaws for managing the affairs of the Samooham, Samooha Madhom and its assets. The plaintiffs 1 to 4 in the suit are members of the trust and the 5th plaintiff is the trust itself.
3. The petitioners filed written statement stoutly refuting the allegation of misappropriation and explaining the circumstances under which the sale deed and gift deed were executed. According to the petitioners, all their actions were based on the decisions taken b
