VALIA KOONAMBAIKULAM SREE BHADRAKALI TEMPLE Vs. RAJENDRAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Ext. P1 suit, instituted under section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short, "the Code"), has had a varied past as it is coming up for the third time before this Court since its institution in 2010. All the times, sanction of leave, under Section 92 of the Code, was under challenge for one reason or the other. This time the petitioners (defendants in the suit) have come up with this original petition, alleging that the respondents (plaintiffs in the suit) have not disclosed their interest in the trust nowhere in Ext.P1 plaint and a few sentences occurring here and there do not even remotely suggest the existence of any interest the plaintiffs said to have in the religious trust. It is therefore contended that one of the essential ingredients of Section 92 of the Code is missing in Ext.P1 and for the same reason sanction of leave as per Ext. P2 order by the Additional District Judge is legally unsustainable.

(2.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the respondents.

(3.) The suit is in respect of administration of Valiya Koonambaikulam Sree Bhadrakali Temple trust (1st defendant). In paragraph 5 of Ext.P1 plaint, it is mentioned that the status of the 1st defendant is that of a constructive trust. Averments in Ext. P1 elsewhere will show that it is an express religious trust dedicated to the public, especially to all faithful, including the plaintiffs. Specific instances of mismanagement by the defendants are mentioned in Ext. P1. The petitioners (defendants) have not delivered their defence so far.