OORAZHMA DEVASWOM BOARD Vs. BRAHMADATHAN NAMBOOTHIRI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant is the first defendant in O.S. 3/2013 on the file of Additional District Judge II, Alappuzha. Appeal is directed against the order dated 6-12-2013 passed by the learned Additional District Judge allowing an application for injunction moved by plaintiffs in the suit.

(2.) Short facts necessary for disposal of the appeal can be summed up thus:--Suit was instituted by respondents 1 to 5 together, hereinafter referred to as plaintiffs, under Section 25 of the Travancore Cochin Literary, Scientific and Charitable Societies Registration Act, 1955 (Act 12 of 1955) for framing a scheme for administration of a society registered under the above Act and for other reliefs. Case of plaintiffs in brief was that they are Oorazhma right holders of a temple, namely, Thiruvampadi Sreekrishnaswami temple. That temple is situated in 4.35 acres of land in survey No. 600/8 of Pazhaveedu Village, Alappuzha. Temple and its property are owned by five illoms and members of those illoms are the hereditary right holders (Oorazhans of the temple). Oorazhans have formed a trust, namely, Thiruvambadi Sree Krishna Swami Kshetra Trust, hereinafter referred to as temple trust, which is the fourth defendant in the suit. In a general body meeting of the temple trust convened by all Oorazhans of five illoms in 1998 it was resolved to form a society. Accordingly society was registered under Act 12 of 1955 and it consisted of 35 members. Except the third plaintiff all other plaintiffs are founder members of the society. Some persons connected with temple trust entered into an agreement with first defendant for entrusting the management and administration of temple to that defendant, and, later, some collusive suits were filed as between first defendant and defendants 2 and 3, who represented the Kshetra Samithi. Under the guise of a collusive decree obtained in one of such suits and in execution of that decree attempts are now being made to take over the possession and management of temple, was the case of plaintiffs to seek for a decree for framing a scheme for the administration of temple and other reliefs. Other reliefs canvassed included a declaration that decree obtained by first defendant in the previous suit against second and third defendant, viz. O.S. 295/2002 of Munsiff Court, Alappuzha is a collusive decree not binding on fourth defendant, and it is a nullity, that the agreement entered by fourth defendant with first defendant over transfer of administration of temple to first defendant is null and void and not binding on temple trust, and also for a decree of prohibitory injunction restraining defendants 1 to 3 from interfering with the administration of Sree Krishna Swami Temple and its assets. Along with the suit plaintiffs moved an application for interim injunction to restrain defendants 1 to 3 from interfering with the administration of temple and its properties, conduct of rituals and festivals and also day to day management of temple by fourth defendant till disposal of the suit That application for injunction was resisted by first defendant alone, filing objections. The other counter petitioners in that application, defendants 2 to 4 in the suit, appeared through counsel in response to notice given, but did not raise any objection. First defendant contended that it is a registered board which has been carrying on administration and management of more than 170 employees including Thiruvambadi Sree Krishna Kshetra Samithy temple. Administration and management of the temple was handed over to this defendant under a registered deed in 2002 by fourth defendant temple trust. Since there was some obstruction from some persons claiming as members of temple advisory committee this defendant had instituted a suit as O.S. 295/2002 before the Principal Munsiff Court, Alappuzha for a decree of injunction. Two other suits were filed by the Temple Advisory Committee against this defendant and others, one of them for a decree of injunction and the other impeaching the registered document by which fourth defendant temple trust handed over the administration and management of temple to this defendant. Those two suits viz., O.S. 227/02 and 485/02 were tried along with the suit filed by this defendant viz., O.S. 295/02, and under the common judgment passed suit of this defendant was decreed and other two suits were dismissed. Decrees passed by trial court in the suits as aforesaid challenged in appeals were affirmed dismissing those appeals. This defendant initiated execution proceedings against the defendants in O.S. 295/02, and in such proceedings first plaintiff in the present suit moved an application claiming himself as the President of the temple trust, and second and fifth plaintiffs, separately, two separate applications, all of them resisting the execution of decree on one or other ground. Those applications with the execution petition were dismissed, and against the dismissal of execution petition this defendant filed an O.P. before this Court. In the light of the observations/directions given in the judgment rendered in the O.P. this defendant filed a fresh execution petition, and, under orders passed by the Munsiff decree had been executed and execution petition was closed as satisfied. Thereafter first plaintiff as president of temple trust has moved two applications before the execution court under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure and those applications are even now pending. Suppressing the above facts present suit has been filed and interim injunction is applied for, is the case of this defendant contending that it is administering and managing the temple in accordance with the registered agreement entered with temple trust and getting delivery of temple properties in execution of the decree in O.S. 295 of 2002.

(3.) Learned District Judge appreciating the claim for interim injunction by plaintiffs with reference to the objections raised by first defendant/appellant and also the documentary materials produced by both sides, has come to the conclusion that appellant does not have any interest over the property of temple and its administration, and plaintiffs have succeeded in establishing a prima facie debatable case for the discretionary relief of injunction. In that view of the matter allowing the application of plaintiffs order of interim prohibitory injunction was passed restraining defendants 1 to 3 or any person claiming under them from interfering with the administration of temple and its properties, conduct of rituals and festivals and also day-to-day management of the temple by the temple trust till disposal of the suit.