KERALESWARAM W COMMITTEE Vs. SADASIVA BHAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DEFENDANTS 1 and 2 are the appellants. Plaintiff filed the suit praying for injunction mandatory and prohibitory. DEFENDANTS 1 and 3 resisted the suit contending that day to day functions of the temple were not properly conducted due to impecunious circumstances and so the worshippers formed a committee with the object of assisting the temple authorities in the conduct of the affairs of the temple, that the committee never interfered with the management of the temple and that it wanted only to construct a kitchen (Pakasala) outside the temple and the same is intended to be donated to the temple. The trial Court dismissed the suit. In A. S. 27 of 1980 the Principal sub Judge held that the defendants have no manner of right to construct a kitchen in the temple premises. The Sub Judge decreed the suit and prohibitory injunction was granted restraining the defendants from putting up any building in the temple compound.

(2.) MAINTAINABILITY of the suit is challenged on the ground that plaintiff who is only a pujari has no locus standi to file the suit. The allegation in the plaint that the plaintiff is a trustee of the temple is denied by the defendants. Counsel for the defendants submitted that there is no shred of evidence to hold that the plaintiff is a trustee of the temple and as he is only a pujari he is not competent to file the suit. Counsel submitted that there is evidence that the plaintiff has to place the keys before the Devaswom authorities and that would definitely show that he is not a trustee of the temple. Counsel further submitted that from Ext. A-2 it can only be found that plaintiff is only a pujari and not a trustee and hence he could not have instituted the suit. In other words, counsel argued that is view of the paucity of evidence that the plaintiff is a trustee the suit ought to have been held to be not maintainable.

(3.) THE duties of a Shebait are both spiritual and temporal. When a Shebait is himself the pujari he has a dual role. In view of the dual capacity of the plaintiff as a shebait and pujari it cannot be said that the suit is not maintainable.