Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 40063
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
VIJU ABRAHAM, J
BABU AJAYAKUMAR M.G. – Appellant
Versus
TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 24364 OF 2022
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SHRI.B.MOHANLAL, SMT.P.S.PREETHA, SMT.A.KUMARI MINI, SHRI.ASWIN V. NAIR, SHRI.ABIJITH M.
For the Respondents: SHRI.C.K.PAVITHRAN, SRI.K.SIJU, SMT.ANJANA KANNATH
The senior male member of a family retains Karanma rights under Hindu customs, and family trust decisions cannot override this principle.
Headnote:(A) Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950 - Section 28 - Writ petition challenging the appointment of Kudumba Moopan - The petitioner contended that the Karaima right for appointment in the temple was wrongly assigned to another family despite separate legal entities - The court found that the petitioner failed to substantiate claims and dismissed the writ petition. (Paras 2, 3, 7)
(B) Legal Entity - The court emphasized the separate legal identity of families and the importance of lineage in determining rights under Hindu customs. (Paras 4, 5)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner challenged the issuance of certificates claiming the Kudumba Moopan right for the Kizhakke Nampanchanazhikathu family, asserting that the Nampanchanazhikathu family had no legal basis for the claim. The petitioner was elected by family members but faced opposition from the appointed Kudumba Moopan of the other family. (Paras 2, 3)
Findings of Court:
The court found no merit in the petitioner's claim due to lack of evidence and adherence to the rules governing Karanma rights. (Paras 6, 7)
Issues: The main issues were the rightful claim to the Kudumba Moopan position and the validity of the family trust's resolution in appointing the petitioner. (Paras 2, 5)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the senior male member of the family retains Karanma rights and that decisions made by family trusts cannot override this. The petitioner's claims lacked sufficient documentation to support his assertions. (Paras 5, 6)
Result: Writ petition dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner's claim of karaima rights. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. counterarguments regarding family lineage and rights. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. court's dismissal of the writ petition. (Para 6 , 7) |
JUDGMENT
The petitioner has approached this Court challenging Exts.P3, P10 and P12 and also seeking other consequential reliefs.
2. The specific case raised by the petitioner is that the Karaima right available to the Kizhakke Nampanchanazhikathu family, Thrikkadavoor, Kollam for getting appointment in the Thrikkadavoor Maha Devar Temple, Kollam of the Travancore Devaswom Board consequent on the Kudumba Mooppan Certificate issued by the 5th Respondent from the family was wrongly assigned to Nampanchanazhikathu Family despite the fact that Nampanchanazhikathu Family and Kizhake Nampanchanazhikathu family are separate legal entity and have separate Karaima right to get appointment in Thrikkadavoor Maha Devar Temple, Kollam of the Travancore Devaswom Board. The petitioner would submit that the hereditary Karaima right accrued to the Kizhakke Nampanchanazhikathu family was acquired from Sri. Krishna Pillai who acquired the right from his predecessors in interest. After his demise, his elder son Sri.Gopala Pillai was elected as the Kudumba Mooppan of the family and after the demise of Sri.Gopala Pillai, Sri.Chandrasekhara Pillai, the younger son of Sri. Krishna Pillai was elected as the Kudumba Moopan of the family and a certificate was issued to that effect as per Ext.P1. While so, on the recommendation of the the Kudumpa Moopan, one Vijayan Pillai was appointed to the Devaswom Board as nominee of the family. Before superannuation of the Karaima right employee in the temple - Sri.S.Vijayan Pillai, the 7th respondent raised a fake claim contending that he is the Kudumpa Moopan of the Nampanchanazhikathu family and requested the 5th respondent to issue a certificate in this regard and the 5th respondent without conducting any proper enquiry issued Ext.P3 certifying that the 7th respondent is the Kudumpa Moopan of Nampanchanazhikathu family, which was issued on Ext.P4 report submitted by the 6th respondent. The petitioner would contend that he being the next Kudumba Moopan of Kizhakke Nampanchanazhikathu family after the demise of Sri.Chandrasekhara Pillai, the entire 41 family members unanimously elected the petitioner as the Kudumba Moopan of Kizhakke Nampanchanazhikathu family on 09.01.2022 as per Ext.P5. Thereafter the 8th respondent submitted an application before the 5th respondent requesting to issue a certificate, certifying that the petitioner is the Kudumba Moopan of Kizhakke Nampanchanazhikathu family, who was unanimously elected as per Ext P5 proceedings. The 6th respondent issued Ext.P7 report in this regard and thereafter Ext.P8 notice of hearing was issued. Thereafter by Ext.P10 the request made by the petitioner was rejected. Challenging Ext.P10, an appeal was preferred before the 4th respondent which was also ultimately dismissed as per Ext.P12. It is aggrieved by the same that the petitioner has approached this Court.
3.The specific case of the petitioner is that the respondents ought not have issued Exts.P3, P10 and P12 orders showing the 7th respondent as Kudumba Moopan of Kizhake Nampanchanazhikathu family, since the two families are having separate legal entity and hereditary lineage. It is also stated that several factual mistakes occurred in Exts.P3, P10 and P12 and there is total non-application of mind by respondents 4 to 6 in issuing the said orders.
4. A detailed counter affidavit has been filed by the 5th respondent, wherein paragraph 4 reads as follows:
“4. There after, Tahsildar heard both parties on 11.02.2022 and examined all documents they had produced. Nampichanazhikathu Madhavi Amma , Grand mother of Sankara Pillai had 5 daughters namely Karthyanı Amma, Narayani Amma, Gouri Amma, Kalyani Amma and Iswari Amma. In this family Madhavan Pillai, (S/o. Karthyani Amma) Gopala Krishna Pillar and Chandra Sekharan Pill
