Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 44991
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Easwaran S., J
UMBERNADU SC/ST BURIAL PLACE PROTECTION AND DEVELOPMENT TRUST – Appellant
Versus
MARUTAKSHI TEMPLE COMMITTEE KOTTARKAVU – Respondent
RSA NO. 511 OF 2025 | AS NO.74 OF 2022 | OS NO.426 OF 2016
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.GEORGE VARGHESE(PERUMPALLIKUTTIYIL), SRI.MANU SRINATH, SRI.LIJO JOHN THAMPY, SMT.NIVEDITA MUCHILOTE, SRI.RIYAS M.B.
For the Respondents:
A trust established after the creation of rights cannot claim proprietary interests in a property without a legal basis.
Headnote:The applicable law is Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The appellant, a Trust representing the interests of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, sought a declaration to manage a burial ground used historically by these communities. The court found that the appellant, established in 2009, failed to prove existing rights to the property or sufficient grounds for interference with the lower court's findings (paragraphs 2-5). The main issue was whether the trial court erred in dismissing the claim due to lack of substantial evidence regarding legal entitlement to the property. The court affirmed the lower courts' conclusions, emphasizing the failure to establish any granted rights (paragraph 8). The appeal was ultimately dismissed (paragraph 9).
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. plaintiff seeks management rights over burial ground. (Para 2) |
| 2. defendant's claim of ownership contested. (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 3. legal entitlement questioned by appellant. (Para 6) |
| 4. court affirms lower court's findings, appeal dismissed. (Para 7 , 8 , 9) |
JUDGMENT
The plaintiff in a suit for declaration of rights to manage a burial ground has come up in the present appeal aggrieved by the concurrent findings of the Munsiff Court, Mavelikara in O.S.No.426/2016 as affirmed by the Additional District Court-I, Mavelikara in A.S.No.74/2022.
2. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the appeal are as follows:
The plaintiff Trust registered in the year 2009 is formed by the members of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes of the locality. The first defendant is a Committee which governs the administration of Sree Maruthakshi Temple, Kottarkavu which is formed by the members of Hindu Pulayar of the locality. The plaintiff sues and the defendants sued are in the representative capacity in the suit. The plaint scheduled property was used as a common burial ground by the members of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and that the said burial place came into existence about 100 years ago during the regime of the Maharaja of Travancore. In the revenue records, the said property is mutated in the name of the Harijan community. For the last forty years, no burial was effected in the above said burial place and there was nobody to look after the same. The plaintiff-Trust came into existence in the above situation and ever since, the formation of Trust, the plaint schedule property is in the possession of the plaintiff Trust. While so, it is contended that the defendants 2 and 3 attempted to obstruct the plaintiff's possession over the plaint scheduled properties. The plaintiff thus prayed for a decree of mandatory injunction directing the defendants 1 to 3 to remove the name boards in the plaint scheduled properties or in the alternative to allow the plaintiff to remove the boards.
3. Defendants 1 to 3 resisted the suit contending that the plaintiff as well as 1st defendant are not the legal persons and they are only unincorporated association of persons. Moreover, no application was preferred under Order I Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure , 1908. Defendants or the residents of the locality are not aware about the existence of the plaintiff Trust. The plaint schedule property is owned by the 1st defendant temple and in the absence of deity in the party array, the relief sought for cannot be granted. Other defendants also resisted the suit.
4. On behalf of plaintiff Exts.A1 to A13 documents were produced. PWs 1 to 9 were examined. On behalf of defendants Exts.B1 to B27 were produced and DW1 was examined. Exts.C1 and C1 (a) are the Commission Report and Sketch. Ext.X1 is the letter issued by the Secretary, Mavelikara Thekkekara Grama Panchaytah.
5. The trial court on appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence came into the conclusion that the possession and management of the schedule property was with temple from the year 2004 and in the absence of the deity being in the party array, the relief cannot be granted. The trial court further found that the plaintiff Trust was not successful in proving that it was in possession of the plaint schedule property and therefore the relief against the defendants 1 to 3 cannot be sustained. Accordingly the suit was dismissed with costs. Aggrieved, the plaintiff preferred AS No.74/2022 before the Additional District Court-I, Mavelikara. By judgment dated 22.01.2025, the appeal was dismissed. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the appeal, the present second appeal is preferred.
6. Heard Sri.George Varghese (Perumpallikuttiyil), the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/Trust. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that both the courts below went wrong in disallowing the claim of the plaintiff Trust. The courts below failed to consider through recitals of Ext.A1 w
