A JANARDHANAN Vs. SIVADASAN NAMBOODIRIPPAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners in an original petition filed seeking leave to institute a suit under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure ('the Code'), are the appellants in this appeal.

(2.) The original petition was filed alleging that the petition schedule property belongs to Melthali Siva Temple (the Temple); that petitioners are devotees of the Temple; that Melthali Siva Temple is a public trust of religious nature; that the 'Oorayma' right of the Temple vests with Kodallur Peroor Illom (the Illom); that the first respondent is the present Ooralan of the Temple representing Illom; that the first respondent has neglected to take care of the affairs of the Temple; that the people in the locality, therefore, formed a trust, namely, Thaliyil Sree Melthali Mahadeva Kshethram Trust and are administering the affairs of the Temple by receiving contributions from the general public; that the first respondent committed breach of trust by inducting respondents 2 to 9 in the petition schedule property; that the first respondent has no authority to induct respondents 2 to 9 in the petition schedule property and that therefore, a suit is required to be instituted for evicting respondents 2 to 9 from the petition schedule property, for removing the first respondent from the administration of the Temple and for settling a scheme for the administration of the Temple.

(3.) The first respondent filed objection to the original petition contending that the petition schedule property belonged to the Illom; that members of the Illom who have rights over the property transferred 5 cents out of the petition schedule property to the second respondent and 81 cents to one Kannan, the predecessor of respondents 3 to 9; that respondents 2 to 9 are in lawful possession of their respective holdings; that the Temple is a private Temple belonging to the Illom situated in a portion of the remaining property; that the petitioners have no right to form a trust to administer the affairs of the Temple and that the petitioners are, therefore, not entitled to the leave sought for.