KUNHIRAMA VARIAR Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) While the statutory authority kept out the 5th Respondent from the post of hereditary trustee, the writ Petitioner was appointed as a fit person. With the passage of time, the statutory authority came to the conclusion that the 5th Respondent, who admittedly is the titled hereditary trustee, is eligible to hold such office and manage the temple. The writ Petitioner, who was appointed as the fit person has accordingly been removed. That decision is challenged by the writ Petitioner, who acted as the fit person, under such appointment. He says that his removal is without notice to him. He also states that the 5th Respondent is unable or non capable to give any undertaking which he has given.

(2.) The writ Petitioner who was appointed only as a fit person, has no rival claim to the office of the hereditary trustee. The appointment of a fit person in terms of Section 47(3) of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1950 is a managerial arrangement, statutorily provided for in cases where it becomes necessary to do so. This does not bring in, any irreversible situation and if with the passage of time, the statutory authority finds it proper or necessary to restore the office of the hereditary trustee, the person holding office, as the fit person, would have no eligibility to challenge that. If such a right is to be conceded, it would be like recognizing the right of a receiver in a civil suit to appeal against a decree on merits of the lis inter se the litigations, even if there is no direction in the decree that may personally affect him or his emoluments as receiver. Therefore, we find no semblance of right in the Petitioner to be aggrieved of the impugned decision. Therefore, even if the Petitioner was heard in relation to the impugned order, we do not find any right on which, the Petitioner could be aggrieved of the decision contained in the impugned Ext.P9.