Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 24075
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
EASWARAN S., J
GOVINDANKUTTY – Appellant
Versus
KOTTAL ASURAMAHAKALAN KAVU TEMPLE, KARIKKAD VILLAGE – Respondent
OP(C) NO. 976 OF 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SMT.MEENA.A., SRI.VINOD RAVINDRANATH, SRI.K.C.KIRAN, SMT.M.R.MINI, SHRI.ANISH ANTONY ANATHAZHATH, SHRI.THAREEQ ANVER, SMT.NIVEDHITHA PREM.V, SRI.ANANTHAKRISHNAN A. KARTHA, SMT.MARIYA JOSEPH, SMT.AMEERA JOJO
For the Respondents: SHRI.K.S.BABU, SMT.N.SUDHA, SRI.BABU SHANKAR
Court emphasized the necessity of not addressing substantive rights when deciding on temporary injunctions, underscoring the importance of preserving the interim status quo until a full trial.
Headnote:The court analyzed the facts surrounding a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction concerning a temple's administrative matters. The petitioners sought to restrain the respondents from interfering with the temple property management. The court found that the lower courts erred by deciding on substantive rights in the injunction order. The core issue revolved around the interim injunction's prerequisites. Ultimately, the court allowed the appeal to the limited extent, confirming the respondents’ management of the temple while preventing their trespass into other properties of the petitioners. The lower courts' orders regarding substantive rights were criticized and deemed unsustainable.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. facts concerning the petition for injunction regarding temple management. (Para 2) |
| 2. court’s observations on the validity of claims and the nature of injunction. (Para 3 , 6 , 9 , 10) |
| 3. arguments concerning the petitioners' claims and the respondents' stance. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 4. court emphasized proper considerations for interim injunction applications. (Para 7) |
| 5. final directions regarding the case outcome and management of temple affairs. (Para 11 , 12) |
J U D G M E N T
This original petition arises out of an order passed in an interlocutory application refusing injunction in O.S No.979/2023.
2. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the original petition are as follows:-
The petitioners sued the respondents in a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction, restraining the defendants and their men from trespassing into the petition schedule property and to interfere with the administrative matters of the temple in the petition schedule property. According to the plaintiffs, the plaint schedule property including the temple was set apart for the joint possession of the tharavad, pursuant to Ext.P2 partition deed. Since the members of the tharavad found it difficult to manage the temple, the administration was entrusted to a registered Society as Kottol Asura Mahakalankavu Kshethra Samithi, the 2nd defendant in the suit. According to the petitioners, a memorandum of association was formed, which recognized the right of the trustee (Ooralan) of the temple. Since the petitioners entertained an apprehension that the Samathi was trying to trespass into the remaining property, excluding the property entrusted to them, and was managing the affairs of the temple to the detriment of the trustee, the suit was instituted, seeking for a permanent prohibitory injunction, restraining the defendants from trespassing into the petition schedule property as well as interfering with the rights of the plaintiffs, in relation to the management of the temple and to make any alteration to the temple as well as the religious ceremonies. A consequential prayer to furnish the accounts of the temple were also sought for. Pending the suit an application for temporary injunction was filed. The learned Munsiff, while considering the application, went into the merits of the claim and found that based on the prior deed, by which the property was entrusted to the plaintiffs, the Jenmie had not entrusted the management of the temple nor any proprietary rights over the temple to the plaintiffs. Thus Ext.A1 was ignored and recitals in Ext.B1 lease deed dated 13.02.1960 was accepted and the Munsiff Court found that the plaintiffs did not established any prima facie right over the temple property. Accordingly, the application for injunction was rejected. Aggrieved, the plaintiffs preferred C.M.A No.26/2024 before the Sub Court, Chavakkad. The First Appellate Court concurred with the findings of the trial court and dismissed the appeal and hence the present appeal.
3. Heard Shri.T.Krishnanunni, the learned Senior Counsel assisted by Smt.Meena A., the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Smt.N.Sudha, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
4. Shri.T.Krishnanunni, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for petitioners contended that even going by Ext.A4, the rights of the petitioners are recognized. Ext.A4 also shows that the 2nd respondent has taken management of the temple from the trustee and therefore the findings of the courts below regarding the proprietor rights of the petitioners over the property is erroneous. It is further pointed out that while considering an application for an interim order, the merits of the matter has been gone into by the trial court, which is fatal to the final outcome of the suit itself. It is further pointed out that the interpretation placed by the trial court to Ext.B1 is flawed, inasmuch as, the lessor could not have included the temple properties in an agreement of lease.
5. Per contra, Smt.N
