Property Title Disputes Must Be Decided by Civil Courts, Not in Writ Proceedings: Kerala High Court - 2025-07-18

Kerala High Court Directs Civil Court to Adjudicate Temple Property Dispute, Closes Writ Petition

KOCHI: The Kerala High Court, in a significant ruling, has reinforced the principle that disputes concerning property title and possession are fundamentally civil in nature and must be adjudicated by a competent civil court, not through writ proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution. A Division Bench comprising Justice Anil K. Narendran and Justice Muralee Krishna S. disposed of a writ petition concerning a property dispute between the Akhila Bharatha Ayyappa Seva Sangham (ABASS) and the Travancore Devaswom Board (TDB), directing the parties to resolve their claims in a pending civil suit.

Background of the Dispute

The case revolves around the ownership and possession of three cents of land and a two-storied building adjacent to the Thirunakkara Sree Mahadeva Temple in Kottayam. The petitioner, the Kottayam branch of ABASS, claimed to have been in possession of the property since 1966, having constructed the building themselves.

The conflict escalated when members of the Temple Advisory Committee (TAC) filed a complaint with the Devaswom Ombudsman. This led to a suo motu case (DBP No. 90 of 2023) being initiated by the High Court. Concurrently, ABASS had filed a civil suit (O.S. No. 60 of 2023) in the Munsiff Court, Kottayam, against certain TAC members and had secured an interim injunction.

The matter came to a head on November 13, 2023, when, according to ABASS, TDB officials, along with TAC members, forcefully evicted them from the premises, seizing possession of the building. This act prompted ABASS to file the writ petition (WP(C) No. 38487 of 2023), seeking to quash the eviction notice and restore possession.

Arguments Presented

Petitioner's (ABASS) Arguments: - ABASS contended that the eviction was a "high-handed act," carried out illegally while the matter was sub-judice before both the High Court and the Munsiff Court. - They argued that the TDB officials misinterpreted an internal order (Ext.P22) to wrongfully dispossess them without due process, in violation of the principles of natural justice and a subsisting court injunction.

Respondents' (TDB and others) Arguments: - The Travancore Devaswom Board and the State maintained that the eviction was conducted based on an order from the Devaswom Commissioner. - They argued that the core issue was a property dispute, which was already the subject of a civil suit, making the writ petition an inappropriate remedy.

Court's Analysis and Decision

The High Court meticulously reviewed the pleadings, the Ombudsman's report, and the submissions from all parties. The bench observed that the Ombudsman had rightly concluded he lacked jurisdiction over such civil disputes.

The court's decision was anchored in the legal principle that complex questions of title and possession require detailed evidence, which can only be properly examined in a civil trial. The judgment noted:

"The said dispute is a matter to be decided by a civil court after considering the rival contentions and the evidence to be adduced by the parties concerned. The petitioner in W.P.(C)No.38487 of 2023 has already filed Ext.P6 suit bearing No.O.S. No.60 of 2023 before the Additional Munsiff Court, Kottayam..."

The Court identified the appropriate legal remedies available to the petitioner within the framework of the pending civil suit. It pointed out that if the petitioner was dispossessed after filing the suit or if the injunction was violated, remedies like amending the plaint to seek recovery of possession and initiating proceedings under Order XXXIX Rule 2A of the Code of Civil Procedure were available.

Final Order and Implications

Ultimately, the High Court closed the suo motu proceedings (DBP No. 90 of 2023) and disposed of the writ petition (W.P.(C)No.38487 of 2023). The court provided ABASS the liberty to amend its existing civil suit to include necessary parties, such as the Travancore Devaswom Board, and seek appropriate reliefs, including recovery of possession.

Significantly, the court directed that the petitioner would be entitled to seek an exemption from the statute of limitations for the period they were bona fide prosecuting the matter before the High Court. This decision channels the dispute back to the civil court, ensuring a thorough examination of evidence to deliver a conclusive judgment on the property's rightful ownership and possession.