PARAMESWARAN NAMBOOTHIRIPAD A. M. Vs. GURUVAYOOR DEVASWOM COMMITTEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is preferred against the judgment in O. S. No. 5 of 2014 of the 3rd Additional District Judge, Thrissur by the plaintiff. The suit was filed by the plaintiff for a declaration and mandatory injunction against the defendants.

(2.) The plaintiff's case in the lower Court is that the 2nd defendant invited application for appointment of Melsanthi in the Guruvayoor Devaswom temple for a period from 01/10/2012 to 31/03/2013 by notification dated 04/08/2012 in which the main qualification prescribed therein was that the candidates should be from Sukapuram or Perumanam Villages with 'Agnihotram' and 'Bhattavrithi' for the post of Melsanthi. The appellant's father was the Melsanthi of Guruvayoor Sreekrishna Temple for three times who possess the qualifications as per the temple custom. The appellant is not having Agnihotram and Bhattavrithi, but he contended that the above notification is in derogation to the custom practiced from time immemorial. Hence, he approached the lower Court for the issuance of a mandatory injunction and a declaration that non - inclusion of person possessing Abhijatyam alone for the post of Melsanthi is arbitrary and illegal.

(3.) In the lower Court, respondents 1 to 4 resisted the suit by filing written statements and contended that the notification was issued on the basis of resolution passed by the Guruvayoor Devaswom on 04/03/1998 and the suit is not maintainable on the ground of non - joinder of necessary parties. The Thandhri who is final word in religious matters of the temple including the decision as to who should conduct rituals as a Melsanthi and on the basis of that, the Devaswom fixed the qualification of Agnihotram and Bhattavrithi as the basic qualification for the post of Melsanthi. The appointment of the plaintiff's father as a Melsanthi was a mistake happened in the past, which was rectified by the Devaswom. The Devaswom is a statutory body and the resolution of the committee has not been challenged after 1998, therefore it is in force and the suit is not maintainable on the above ground, consequently the lower Court dismissed the suit.