Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 47560
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
ANIL K. NARENDRAN, P. V. BALAKRISHNAN, JJ
SRIMAD ANANTHESWAR TEMPLE MANJESWAR – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 19577 OF 2024
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI. MAHESH V RAMAKRISHNAN, SHRI. PRAVEEN K.S.
For the Respondents:
Writ petitions can be dismissed for suppressing material facts, showcasing the necessity for full candid disclosure under Article 226.
Headnote:(A) Article 226 of the Constitution of India - Writ of mandamus - Seeking orders regarding the alienation of immovable Trust property under the provisions of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951 - Petition dismissed due to suppression of material facts, with emphasis on the necessity of candid disclosure in very seeking discretionary remedies. (Paras 1, 7, 8, 10, 11)
(B) Jurisdiction - Scrutiny of maintainability of claims in relation to real property rights affected by specific local laws - The petitioner's rights regarding Mulageni properties were rendered non-existent due to the provisions of the Karnataka Conferment of Ownership on Mulageni or Volamulageni Tenants Act, 2011, and thus cannot invoke jurisdiction in a different state. (Paras 5, 6, 9, 12)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. seeking mandamus for property rights. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. recovery of rights affected by local laws. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. candid disclosure required in petitions. (Para 9 , 10) |
| 4. writ not granted due to suppressed facts. (Para 11) |
JUDGMENT
Anil K. Narendran, J.
The petitioner, namely, Srimad Anantheswar Temple, represented by the President of its Council of Trustees, has filed this writ petition invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the 3rd respondent Commissioner, Malabar Devaswom Board to consider and pass orders on Ext.P2 application dated 03.06.2022 made by the petitioner, expeditiously, within a specified time frame, after affording an opportunity of being heard; and also a writ of mandamus commanding the 3rd respondent Commissioner to grant approval in general to sell Muli rights for Mulageni properties located in the State of Karnataka, where the Mulageni tenant is willing to purchase the "muli right" by paying lump sum amount, as against the Mulageni Rentals at a lower rate.
2. The petitioner temple is a controlled institution under the 2nd respondent Malabar Devaswom Board, which owns a large extent of property in the State of Karnataka. Ext.P2 application made by the petitioner before the 3rd respondent Commissioner is one invoking the provisions under Section 29 of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951 , which deals with alienation of immovable Trust property.
3. On 31.05.2024, when this writ petition came up for admission, the learned counsel for the petitioner was directed to address arguments on the maintainability of the second relief sought for in this writ petition, with specific reference to the law laid down by the Apex Court inA.B. Bhaskara Rao. v. Central Bureau of Investigation [2011 (10) SCC 259]
4. On 05.07.2024, when this matter came up for consideration, the learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out the interim order of the High Court of Judicature at Karnataka in W.A.No.726 of 2023, whereby, an order of status quo is directed to be maintained in respect of the implementation of the provisions under the Karnataka Conferment of Ownership on Mulageni or Volamulageni Tenants Act, 2011 .
5. A counter affidavit dated 27.05.2025 has been placed on record by the 1st respondent, opposing the reliefs sought for in this writ petition. Paragraphs 4 to 9, 12 and 13 of the said counter affidavit read thus;
"4.The preliminary aspects to be considered on (1) “territorial jurisdiction (2) absence of right in favour of the petitioner (3) “suppression of material facts.
5. The petitioner claims to be the lessor of certain property in the State of Karnataka. The property in dispute is in the State of Karnataka. He admittedly, is only the lessor having no possession over the property by virtue of Karnataka Act No.24 of 2012, The Karnataka Conferment of Ownership on Mulageni or Volamulageni Tenants Act, 2011 , the rights of lessors like the petitioners, popularly known as Mulagar rights are statutorily transacted. The property in question and the right in question are only those which are available in the State of Karnataka. The petitioner cannot have any Mulagar rights in the State of Kerala. As a result of which, following the principles akin to those laid down under Section 20 of CPC, as well as the principles in public law, the transactions of the above nature and the rights flowing there from the land situated in the State of Karnataka are not liable to be transacted before this Honourable Court.
6. The second crucial aspect to be considered as a preliminary issue is as to whether the petitioner had heard of any conduct regarding a right, if any, already been taken away by a Statute. Section 3 of the Karnataka Conferment of Ownership on Mulageni or Volamulageni Tenants Act, 2011 is as follows:
Conferment of ownership right on Mulagenidar and Volamulagenidar - Every mulagenidar or volamul
