SREEKANTAN SASTHA KSHETRA TRUST Vs. SREEKANTAN SASTHA TEMPLE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The common order by which the II Additional District Court, Thiruvananthapuram disposed of the interlocutory applications in O.S.No.1 of 2014 relating to the reconstruction of Sreekandan Sastha Temple, Kunnapuzha, hereinafter referred to as 'the temple' for short, is under challenge in these matters. O.P.(Civil) No.2178 of 2014 is preferred challenging the orders on I.A.Nos.356 of 2013, 1905 of 2013 and 1906 of 2013. O.P.(Civil) NO.2221 of 2014 is preferred challenging the order on I.A.No.356 of 2013. F.A.O.No.281 of 2014 is preferred challenging the order on I.A.No.2950 of 2012.

(2.) O.S.No.1 of 2014 is a suit filed under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure in respect of the temple. A few devotees of the temple filed the suit for framing a scheme for the administration of the temple. The fifth defendant in the suit is a N.S.S. Karayogam. They filed a suit earlier as O.S.No.1478 of 2007 before the Munsiff Court, Thiruvananthapuram against the first defendant trust and others seeking a declaration that they are entitled to administer the affairs of the temple. The said suit was filed alleging that they have been managing the temple in accordance with Ext.A4 bye law in that suit and that some of the office bearers of the Devaswom, who were elected in terms of Ext.A4 bye law, formed the first defendant trust and attempting to usurp the management and control of the temple. The first defendant trust and its office bearers resisted the suit contending that the fifth defendant has no right over the temple and that the temple is being managed by the public, constituting the first defendant trust. O.S.No.1478 of 2007 was decreed declaring that the plaintiff therein has the right to administer and manage the affairs of the temple in accordance with Ext.A4 bye law till a proper scheme for the administration of the temple is formulated in appropriate legal proceedings. The court also restrained the first defendant trust and others from interfering with the administration of the temple by the fifth defendant in accordance with Ext.A4 bye law. The matter was taken in appeal by the first defendant trust as also by the fifth defendant before the Principal Sub Court, Thiruvananthapuram. A.S.No.111 of 2009 was the appeal preferred by the first defendant and A.S.No.26 of 2010 was the appeal preferred by the fifth defendant. The appellate court, on an independent evaluation of the materials on record, confirmed the decree and judgment of the trial court. The appellate court also held that the creation of the first defendant trust is void ab initio and directed the defendants in the suit to deliver the original of the trust deed to the concerned Sub Registrar for cancellation. The first defendant trust has taken up the matter further before this Court in R.S.A.No.132 of 2013 and this Court confirmed the decision of the courts below and dismissed the Second Appeal. Ext.P4 in O.P.(C) No.2178 of 2014 is the judgment in R.S.A.No.132 of 2013. In the said judgment, this Court also found that the fifth defendant has been in administration of the temple and the trust has not acquired any right over the temple. The suit O.S.No.1 of 2014 was filed during the pendency of R.S.A.No.132 of 2013. In view of the pendency of O.S.No.1 of 2014, this Court also held that all pending issues relating to the temple shall be worked out in the said suit. Earlier, during the pendency of A.S.No.111 of 2009, the temple was demolished by the first defendant trust. When the said fact was brought to the notice of this Court in the Second Appeal referred to above, this Court directed that appropriate provision for reconstruction of the temple can be made in O.S.No.1 of 2014 on such terms and conditions as the court deems fit.

(3.) In the light of the observations and directions issued by this Court in R.S.A.No.132 OF 2013, I.A.No.2950 of 2013 was filed by the plaintiffs in O.S.No.1 of 2014 seeking to appoint a receiver for the proper and effective management of the temple and also for the reconstruction of the temple. I.A.No.356 of 2013 was filed by the fifth defendant seeking the leave of the court to reconstruct the temple on a budget of Rs.25,00,000/ -. I.A.Nos.1906 of 2010 and 1905 of 2013 were filed by the first defendant trust seeking permission to reconstruct the temple and to accept the plan and estimate for the reconstruction of the temple.