IRUVAIKONAM BHAGAVATHI TEMPLE Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellants are the Petitioners in O.P. (Trust) No.5/2022 seeking leave to institute a suit on behalf of the 1st Applicant temple under S.92 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

(2.) The said Original Petition was originally allowed as per the order dtd. 6/12/2023, granting leave to the Applicants. At the time of passing the said order dtd. 6/12/2023, I.A No.2/2023 to implead supplemental respondents 7 and 8 was pending. Since the Original Petition was disposed of without considering I.A No.2/2023, this Court set aside the order dtd. 6/12/2023 as per judgment dt. 10/9/2024 in OP(C) No.463/2024 and remanded the matter back to Trial Court to consider the matter afresh after allowing I.A No.2/2023. Thereafter, the additional respondents 7 and 8 were impleaded in the Original Petition and the matter was re-heard and the impugned order was passed dismissing the Application for leave, holding that there is absolutely no pleading to find any of the grounds specified under S.92 CPC. In the Original Order dtd. 6/12/2023 Exts.A1 to A16 documents were marked from the side of the Applicants and Exts.B1 and B2 documents from the side of the respondents. In the impugned Order, none of the documents are shown in the Appendix. Since the documents which are shown in the Appendix of the Original Order form part of the records and the relevant documents among them are produced by the parties, I consider those documents as per the making of the same in the original order.

(3.) The short facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal as revealed from the pleadings are: The 1st Applicant temple is situated in 29.27 Ares of land in Sy.5/8A in Thirupuram Village. Pursuant to the General Body decision on 08/08/1982, Ext.A11 Trust Deed was registered on 14/10/1982 by the Applicants 3 to 5 and others creating a Trust for the management of the Temple. The name of the Trust is 'Eruvai Bhagavathi Kshethrayogam Trust'. The Trust Deed would show that Applicant No.3 was the Secretary, Applicant No.4 was the Assistant Secretary and Applicant No.5 was the member of the Committee managing the temple as on the date of the Deed. It shows that the Committee was elected every year. The respondents 4 and 5 and certain others filed O.S No. 114/1983 seeking a declaration of title and possession over the property of the Temple. Initially, the suit was dismissed and in appeal, the suit was remanded back to the Trial Court. Thereafter, the suit was decreed, declaring the title and possession and passing a consequential injunction. In S.A.No.631/2001, the judgment and decree of the Trial Court was reversed and the suit was dismissed by this Court. Even though the respondents