SUKUMARAN Vs. AKAMALA SREE DHARMA SASTHA IDOL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Defendants in a scheme suit filed under S.92 of the Code of Civil Procedure are the appellants in this appeal. The suit relates to the administration of Akamala Sree Dharma Sastha Temple at Mullurkkara in Trissur District. The plaintiffs prayed for dissolution of Ext. A1 trust deed and also consequential reliefs for framing a scheme for the administration of the temple. Plaintiffs had also alleged certain misfeasance and mal-feasance in the administration of the temple by the defendants. The court below did not accept these allegations. However, the court held that Ext. Al trust deed is not legally valid and therefore it was set aside; and the parties on either side were allowed to file application for passing a final decree along with a draft scheme and until such a scheme is settled the court ordered that the defendants would continue to manage the affairs of the temple. The defendants were also directed to furnish accounts relating to the management of the temple. Aggrieved by this finding the present appeal is filed.

(2.) In the plaint the plaintiffs alleged that Akamala Sree Dharma Sastha Temple ('Temple') is in a puramboke land. This temple is of ancient origin, though the present idol was consecrated at a later stage. The temple is on the western side of Vadakkancherry-Mullurkara road. People of the locality used to give offerings to the temple. The vehicles which pass through the nearby public road stop near the temple to make offerings. It seems that there was considerable income for the temple and with the cooperation of the people of the locality some buildings were constructed in the temple premises. A sanctum sanctorum was constructed with two rooms and verandah in 1968. In 1977 a committee was formed with the name Akamala Sree Dharma Sastha Sabha and it was registered under the Kerala Literary, Scientific and Charitable Societies Act. There were some litigations between the parties regarding the administration of the temple. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants are now carrying on the administration of the temple according to their whims and fancies. They alleged that the income of the temple is not properly accounted and the defendants are trying to invest money on unnecessary matters and that they are also trying to create false accounts and therefore the plaintiffs wanted the removal of the defendants from the management of the temple.

(3.) The defendants filed a detailed written statement wherein they asserted that they are fully competent to conduct the management of the temple. They alleged that in 1969 an idol of the temple was found missing and it was at the instance of the 6th defendant that the missing idol was retrieved and the temple reconsecrated. The 6th defendant convened a meeting of local Hindus and A 'samathi' was constituted and this samathi collected funds and constructed the sanctum sanctorum and the nearby buildings. A permanent temple priest was appointed. In 1979 a group of some other people formed 'Sree Dharma Sastha Sabha' and that too got its registration under the Charitable Societies Act. There arose a suit between the 'Sabha' and 'Samathi' which ended in litigation as O.S.77/79. That suit was compromised and it was decided that the management should be conducted by a committee consisting of 18 members. The defendants further alleged that these 18 member committee elected 7 members as executive committee. The entire administration of the temple was streamlined. This executive committee appointed a manager, two watchman and a cook. The practice of giving receipts for the donation was started and an account also was started in the name of the committee in Dhanalakshmi bank. A trust deed was executed for the proper management of the affairs of the temple. The defendants contended that the suit as framed by the plaintiffs is not maintainable under S.92 of the C.P.C. The malfeasance and misfeasance alleged by. the plaintiffs are denied by the defendants. According to the defendants in all respects the temple has prospects and the suit was filed out of jealousy.