PAYYANNUR CO OP EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY Vs. NARAYANAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The above appeal is filed against the judgment and decree in O.S. No. 9 of 1987 of the Sub Court, Payyannur. (Suit was filed originally in the Sub Court, Tellicherry as O.S.No. 242 of 1982 and thereafter, transferred to the Sub Court, Payyannur). First defendant is the appellant. Suit was filed for declaration that the sale deed dated 7.7.1982 in respect of the plaint schedule property executed by the second defendant in favour of the first defendant is not valid and binding on the Thiruvarkat Kavu Devaswom and to restore possession of the property of the temple to be managed by the third defendant and for other reliefs.

(2.) Plaint schedule property is an extent of 10 Hectares of land in R.S. No. 30/2A of Madai Amsom, Madai Desom. Originally, there was only one plaintiff. But subsequently, the fourth defendant got himself transposed as additional second plaintiff. The plaint schedule property belongs to Thiruvarkat Kavu Devaswom, popularly known as Madai Kavu Devaswom. The sole hereditary trustee of the Devaswom is Chirakkal Kovilakam, represented by is seniormost male member. According to the plaintiff, Thiruvarkat Kavu is one of the foremost important Devi Shrines in North Kerala having a hoary tradition. It is financially very sound. The most important festival in the Temple is the Pooram festival occurring in March-April every year and several people gather in the temple during the festival season. During the festival season, the deity is taken in procession to various places. One of the areas through which the .procession passes is the plaint schedule property. The Temple is a public Temple subject to the superintendence of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department.

(3.) According to the plaintiff, he came to know that the plaint schedule property was being sold by the second defendant to the first defendant from a news item which appeared in the Desabhimani dated 3.7.1982. Thereafter in the Mathrubhoomi Daily dated 19.7.1982. It was stated that a sale deed had already been executed. The sale deed that was executed by the second defendant in favour of the first defendant is the sale deed dated 7.7.1982, copy of which is produced as Ext. Al in the case. According to the original plaintiff, he is residing near about the Temple and he is a regular worshipper there. He is very much interested in the welfare and well being of the Temple. But he came to know about the registration, he obtained registration copy of the same and found that the transaction was highly prejudicial to the interest of the institution. There was no necessity for such a transaction and no benefit had accrued to the institution. On the other hand, considerable prejudice has been caused to the Temple on account of the loss of an area through which festival procession moves. The sale deed was executed for a consideration of Rs. 20,000/-. The extent of the land involved is 25 acres. In paragraph 7 of the plaint, plaintiff attacked the order passed by the fourth respondent in respect of the execution of the sale deed. According to the allegations, as a matter of fact, the proposal came from the Commissioner, H.R. and C.E. and not from the Devaswom. Everything was done in a hurry. The procedure prescribed under S.29 of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act was not followed. Publication before granting sanction was dispensed with when there was no circumstance existing for that. There was no necessity for the Devaswom to sell the property. The Commissioner fixed the value at Rs. 100/- per acre, ie., the total valuation of Rs. 2,500/-. Even the order granting sanction was not published as contemplated in S.29 of the H.R. and C.E. Act. It is further stated that the trustee acted against the interest of the trust in assigning the property for an amount, which has absolutely no bearing and that there was no benefit to the Devaswom.