PADMANABHAN NAMBOODIRIPAD Vs. COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Second Appeal has come before us on a reference by justice P. K. Balasubramanyan. The reference has been made since a question of importance regarding the right of Thanthries had arisen in this case. The facts relating to the Second Appeal are as follows:

(2.) PLAINTIFF in O. S. No. 218 of 1982 on the file of the subordinate Judge's Court, Trichur is the appellant. Defendant in the suit is the Cochin Devaswom Board, Trichur. The suit was instituted for a declaration that the right to conduct Pushpanjali and to obtain fee thereof in the Triprayar Sree Rama Swami Temple is the right vested in the plaintiff as the Thantri of the Temple. According to the plaintiff, the Triprayar Sree Rama Swami Temple is the Temple under the management of the Cochin Devaswom Board. The right to conduct Pushpanjali of the Temple is vested in the Thanthri of the Temple . Thanthravrithi belongs to the plaintiff's family. The plaintiff contends that this was granted to the plaintiff's family by Lord Parasurama and as per this right, Pushpanjali in the Temple was being conducted by the members of the plaintiff's family. Only in the presence of the Thanthri, Pushpanjali was conducted by the Melsanthi. Pushpanjali is to be conducted only during Vrischika and on no other occasions. But from 1. 5. 1964 onwards, the Devaswom Board has been issuing tickets for conducting pushpanjali and this Pushpanjali is being performed by the Santhi specially deputed for that purpose called "pushpanjali Santhi". The Devaswom board is receiving amounts for conducting Pushpanjali and the Santhies are given a portion of the amount. The plaintiff's family filed representations on 9. 7. 1964 to the Cochin Devaswom Board claiming its right to conduct pushpanjali. Even though many representations were filed, no action had been taken. According to the plaintiff, the Cochin Devaswom Board wanted some authoritative documents to support the case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff's family has got right to conduct Pushpanjali.

(3.) THERE were three Santhies at the Triprayar Temple and they were called "melsanthi", "keezhsanthi" and 'ozhivusanthi". The ozhivusanthi was doing Pooja in the absence of Melsanthi and Keezhsanthi. When there was increase in the offerings of Pushpanjali, one person had m be appointed for Pushpanjali alone. Thus, the Ozhivusanthi was given the status of melsanthji and he was appointed as Pushpanjali Santhi. At Triprayar Temple , the Thanthri is to do the ucha Pooja or Pantheeradi Pooja. For this, the Thanthri is paid a salary of Rs. 82/- originally and later Rs. 100/- as salary and Rs'. 39/- as allowance. Apart from this, the Thanthri is to do special offerings like Kalabham. For that, the thanthri is paid Rs. 5/ -. Further, for three days in the month of Vrischika and for ten days in connection with the Pooram in the month of Meena, the Thanthri is to do special Poojas. For those Poojas, the Thanthri is paid additional amounts. The plaintiff is not entitled to get any declaration as prayed for. The plaintiff's father admitted that Melsanthi was to do Pushpanjali. THERE was an admission from Puliyannur Aryan Namboodiripad, who is one of the greatest thanthries. The Pushpanjali Santhi was appointed after consulting all connected persons. THERE is no merit in the petitions filed by the plaintiffs. Each santhi was to do Pooja for three months in turn. Thus they are paid at the rate of three paise per Pushpanjali as Pushpanjali wages. The balance amount of pushpanjali is credited to the Devaswom funds. The plaintiff did not do pushpanjali after 1964. Thus, the plaintiff is not entitled to any right as prayed for.