K K MENON Vs. NATARAJA MOOPANAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Revision Petition by the executive officer of Thiruchendur Sri Subramoniaswamy Devasthanom is directed against an order refusing to implead the Devasthanom as a party to the suit. The suit was for removal of trustees, for rendition of accounts and for framing a scheme for a Trust created by the ancestors of the plaintiffs and defendants 8 to 13 for the performance of various religious ceremonies in Subramoniaswamy temple at Thiruchendur and in other temples and at a Matom, on certain specified dates. The grounds on which the prayer for impleading was made were that Patta for the properties stood in the name of Subramoniaswamy and that the income therefrom was to be utilised for conducting Mantagapadi during Avani and Masi festivals in the temple of Subramoniaswamy at Thiruchendur. The application was opposed by the plaintiffs and the defendants and the court below held that the Devasthanom was not entitled to be impleaded. The application was accordingly dismissed.

(2.) Though the application for impleading the Devathanom was opposed by the defendants also they have not been made parties to this Revision Petition. They are as much interested in the outcome of the litigation as the plaintiffs. This omission to make them parties to this Revision Petition is sufficient to entail dismissal of the same but I do not propose to do so on that ground alone.

(3.) The position contended for on behalf of the petitioner was that ownership of the properties vested in Subramoniaswamy as seen from the Patta and that the deity should therefore be represented in the suit. The learned Judge has pointed out that the Trust was created for the daily pooja of Sabapathi idols installed in the Matom built by the founders of the Trust, for the performance of Mantagapadi ceremony in Thiruchendur temple on the third day of Avani and Masi festivals, for Maheswara Pooja and other ceremonies to be conducted at the Matom, for daily Pooja of Uchinimakali Amma in the temple at Aloor and for the Chirappu in the third Somavaram of Karthikai in the Mahadevar temple at Aloor. The Patta has to be construed in the light of the decision granting the same and it is clear that performance of the specified ceremonies in the temple of Subramoniaswamy is only one of the objects of the Trust. The petitioner has no case that the deity was functioning as owner of the properties or trustee in the past. Neither the plaintiffs nor the defendants have set up any interest adverse to the deity. This case cannot be considered on a par with the cases reported in Parmatha Nath v. Pradhrumma Kumar Mullick ( 52 Indian Appeals 245 ) and Kanhaya Lal v. Hamid Ali ( 60 Indian Appeals 263 ) where the idol was directed to be made a party, in view of the peculiar circumstances of the cases and the contentions of the parties. The following passage from Bimal Krishna v. Iswar Radha Ballav ( AIR 1937 Cal. 338 ) is instructive: