Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(SC) 12274
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.B. PARDIWALA, HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN
OACHIRA PARABRAHMA TEMPLE – Appellant
Versus
G. VIJAYANATHAKURUP – Respondent
C.A. No.-013708-013709 - 2024
The court affirmed the necessity of conducting elections for temple management in accordance with its bye-laws, emphasizing the importance of maintaining established governance structures.
Headnote:(A) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Sections related to appeals and interlocutory applications - The management of a temple is governed by its bye-laws, which mandate elections for the Executive Committee every five years - The High Court appointed an Administrative Head to oversee the temple's management and directed the trial court to frame a management scheme. (Paras 6, 15, 16)
(B) Jurisdiction - The High Court's authority to entertain an interlocutory application after disposing of the main appeal was questioned, raising issues of functus officio and the continuity of elected bodies. (Paras 8, 16)
Facts of the case:
The appellants, elected officials of the temple, challenged the High Court's orders regarding the management and administration of the temple, which is unique and historical, lacking a consecrated idol and governed by its bye-laws. (Paras 3, 4)
Findings of Court:
The court appointed a retired Judge as the Administrative Head to conduct elections and manage the temple, ensuring adherence to the bye-laws and expediting the final decree proceedings. (Paras 16)
Issues: The main issues were whether the High Court had jurisdiction to entertain the interlocutory application post-disposal of the appeal and the justification for appointing an unelected committee contrary to established practices. (Paras 8)
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of conducting elections for the temple's management in accordance with its bye-laws and the need for effective administration until a scheme is framed. (Paras 15, 16)
Result: Civil Appeals disposed of as per the orders outlined.
J U D G M E N T
R.MAHADEVAN, J. Leave granted.
2. The appellants, claiming themselves as elected Secretary and President of a temple viz., Oachira Parabrahma Temple situated at Kerala (hereinafter shortly referred to as "the subject temple"), have preferred these Civil Appeals against two orders passed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam viz. one is a final Judgment and order dated 02.03.2020 passed in RFA No. 562/2010 and another is an order dated 07.02.2023 passed in I.A No. 5/2022.
Brief background
3. According to the averments made in the Civil Appeals, the subject temple is a unique, ancient and historical one as there is no building, consecrated idol or deity and sanctum sanctorum. The management of the temple and the institutions being run under it, such as, super speciality hospital, nursing college, etc., are governed by the bye-laws of the temple. As per the Bye-laws, the administration is vested in a system of three-tier elected Committees, viz., Pothubharana Samithi (General Board), Pravarthaka Samithi (Working Committee) and Karya Nirvahana Samithi (Executive Committee). The Appellant Nos.1 and 2 were elected as Secretary and President respectively of the Executive Committee in the election held during May 2017 and thereafter, no election has been conducted so far. However, on 07.04.2022, the Executive Committee, which existed till then, was voted out in a no-confidence motion, and a new committee consisting of 11 members, including the appellants, assumed office.
4. In the year 2006, some devotees filed a suit in OS.No.1/2006 before the 1 st Additional District Court, Kollam, seeking to frame a Scheme for administration of the subject temple and the institutions thereunder. By judgment and decree dated 09.04.2010, the trial Court passed a preliminary decree directing framing a Scheme; and further, directed the parties to file a draft Scheme. It was also observed by the trial Court that till the Scheme is framed, the administration of the subject temple would continue as per the Bye-laws of the temple.
5. Aggrieved by the aforesaid preliminary decree of the trial Court, the defendant Nos.12 and 13 who are Sthanis (Hereditary Trustees) of the temple, preferred a Regular First Appeal bearing No.562/2010 before the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam, seeking a direction to the trial Court to make adequate safeguards for them, with respect to their share of amounts and their roles to play, in the proposed Scheme. During the pendency of the said RFA, an interim order dated 05.10.2010 came to be passed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court, appointing an Advocate Commissioner viz ., Mr.B.Premnath, for the purpose of counting the offerings in the temple. According to the appellants, the Advocate Commissioner so appointed was only to the limited purpose of counting the offerings in the temple and he had not been given any power to administer the subject temple over and above the Committees or to supervise the Committees at any point of time.
6. By the 1 st impugned order, the High Court disposed of the aforesaid Regular First Appeal, inter alia , directing the trial Court to frame a Scheme for the management of the temple and its institutions and to formulate Rules with respect to their functioning, after giving opportunity to all the parties to produce draft Scheme as expeditiously as possible, but not later than one year from the date of production of copy of the Judgment. Further, the High Court appointed Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.V. Ramakrishna Pillai, a retired Judge of the High Court of Kerala, as the Administrative Head of the subject temple and the Trust/Managing Committee. It was further observed in the 1 st impugned order that the Administrative Committee (the bodies elected as per the bye- laws of the temple) shall be under the supervision and full control of the said Administrative Head; until such time the scheme is framed by the Trial Court ; all decisions of the elected bodies s
