The court upheld the appointment of a receiver for temple administration amidst disputes, emphasizing the need for order and a quick resolution to the civil suit.

J U D G M E N T

The writ petition is filed seeking mainly the following relief:

i. to call for the records leading upto Exts.P5 and P7 and quash the same by the issuance of a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction.

2. Petitioners are the plaintiffs in O.S.No.192 of 2005 on the file of the Sub Court, Pathanamthitta. Suit is for a declaration and injunction, and the respondents are the defendants. The dispute involved in the suit relate to the title and possession and also administration of a temple, more particularly, a 'Mudippura'. The factual matrix of the disputes covered by the suit does not arise for consideration in the present writ petition as it has been submitted by both sides that the trial of the suit has already commenced with the evidence partly recorded. Challenge raised in the writ petition by the petitioners/plaintiffs is against appointment of a receiver over the plaint property comprising the temple, which, ordered by the trial court has been confirmed in appeal by the learned District Judge, Pathanamthitta. Admittedly, in view of the wrangling between the parties for possession and administration of the temple, which gave rise to law and order problems, proceedings under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure had been initiated by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, and previous to the appointment of the receiver, the possession of the temple had been taken over by the Magistrate. However, later in view of the pendency of the civil suit, and the civil court seizing the matter, proceedings initiated by the Sub Divisional Magistrate as aforesaid were dropped. Possession was taken over from the plaintiffs by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, and in view of the orders passed by this Court in other proceedings relating to police protection etc. even after appointment, the receiver, never came into possession, but, only supervised the festival, which was conducted only on one day in a year, subject to the orders passed by this Court, is the submission of the learned counsel for the plaintiffs contending that the statusquo ante, which prevailed at the time when the Sub Divisional Magistrate took over possession has to be judicially recognised and approved. The Mudippura over which rival claims are set up in respect of its title and administration by the parties to the proceedings, it is submitted, has no daily poojas, but, only a festival in a year on a single day. So much so, the appointment of a receiver over the plaint property comprising the Mudippura for its administration as ordered by the court below, was not proper and correct, and as the materials prima facie indicate that possession was taken over from the plaintiffs by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, they should be allowed to administer the temple till final adjudication of the suit, is the submission of the learned counsel for the plaintiffs. Receiver has already taken over possession of the property, and pursuant to that, the administration of the temple subject to orders passed by the court, is conducted by him, is the submission of the learned counsel for the respondents.

3. Having regard to the submissions made as above, Registry was directed to ascertain whether the receiver has taken over possession of the plaint property and continue in administration of the temple pursuant to the order of his appointment by the court. It is reported by the Registry that the receiver in his report dated 24.3.2008 had reported to the court below as to his taking over the properties and custody of the key and connected records on 28.2.2008 from the President of the Kshetra Samrakshana Samithi, issuing an acknowledgment. Though such report was filed by the receiver a few days after taking over the plaint property and the records of the temple, I find no reason to doubt the assertion of the receiver as to his taking over the possession on 28.2.2008 from the President of the Kshethra Samrakshana Samithi, since, admittedly, the veracity of that