JAYA ROY Vs. SUKUMARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is preferred against the judgment and decree of the Additional District Judge, Kottayam in AS No. 259/2003. The said appeal was preferred against the judgment and decree in OS No. 618/1995 of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Kottayam. The plaintiffs moved a suit for declaration, framing of a scheme and for permanent injunction. It is the definite case of the plaintiffs that Kalakkal temple is a private temple owned and managed by the members of the plaintiffs' family known as Kalakkal. The temple is situated in an extent of 70 cents comprised in Sy. No. 206/3 of Vaikom Taluk. Since there was difficulty for the lower class of the Hindu community to visit and offer their worships to Vaikom Mahadeva Temple, it is their contention that the property described in the plaint schedule was taken on kuthakapattom by Kochupennu Karumba and thereafter it has been managed by Kochupennu Karumba and on her death, her legal representatives, who constituted, according to them, the Kalakkal family.

(2.) On the other hand, the defendants would contend that this temple is a subsidiary of Lord Mahadeva Temple at Vaikom and it has been under the management of Kalakkal family which is a particular unit and aid etc. were given by the Devaswom and therefore neither Kochupennu Karumba nor the members of the family as alleged in the plaint are entitled to get any relief.

(3.) The Trial Court, on appreciation of the materials available before it, came to the conclusion that case of kuthakapattom is not established but granted a declaration for framing of a scheme for the future management of the temple. But it is interesting to note that such a direction was given after finding that it was a public temple.