LTHITHANAM ELAMKAVU DEVASWAOM Vs. JAIMON

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petitioners are respondents 1 to 5, 10 to 12, 14, and 16 in O.P.(Others) No.7 of 2022 on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Kottayam. O.P. (Others) No.7 of 2022 is an application filed by respondents 1 to 3 under Sec. 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure for grant of leave to institute the suit.

(2.) Briefs facts necessary for the disposal of the revision are as follows: The leave under Sec. 92 is sought to frame a settlement for the 1st respondent/Devaswom to remove respondents 3, 4, and 9 to 17 and people under them from the administration of the 1st respondent Devaswom, 5th respondent temple, and respondents 6 to 8 to appoint new trustees or administrators to the 1st respondent Devaswom and its institution and for other reliefs (the parties are referred to as they appear in the court below). The 5th respondent/temple was founded more than 200 years ago by the Hindu public of Ithithanam. All denominations and communities of Hindus worshipped in the temple as of right. It has been recognised as a public temple from its inception. An agreement was entered for the administration of the temple and registered as document No.6/1960 before the S.R.O., Changancherry. In the said agreement, the ultimate authority of the temple/Devaswom was vested with the general body, which consisted of male members or the descendants of each Hindu home, who were major. All such persons have a right to be members of the general body subject to the conditions in the deed. Thus, the public nature of the temple and Devaswom is specifically stated in the said agreement.

(3.) The petitioners/respondents 1 to 3 herein are the worshippers of the temple and beneficiaries of the temple and Devaswom. The poojas and festivals are conducted in the same way as in public temples, and the offerings are received from all Hindus. All the Hindus participate in the festival and ceremonies, and they are being conducted with contributions from the public. An educational institution is also conducted under the auspices of the temple/Devaswom. The petitioners 1 and 2 are members of the general body of the 1st respondent Devaswom. Though the 3rd petitioner applied for membership in the Devaswom, respondents 3 and 4 did not accept the same. The administration of the temple is illegally conducted by respondents 3, 4, and 9. In 2009, a bye-law was drawn wherein it is specified that the general body shall consist only of Nairs. The said recitals in the bye-law are against the original agreement executed in 1960, avoiding all Hindus and giving preference to Nairs goes the root of the matter. Therefore, there are grounds to remove respondents 3, 4, and 9 from being office bearers and also to settle a new scheme. The functioning of the temple is on the basis of illegal bye laws and destroying the basic principles embodied in the agreement dtd. 19/1/1960. Therefore, interference is warranted by the Court in the administration of the temple for settling a scheme and removal of members from the administrative committees.