K O M PARAMESWARAN NAMPOOTHIRIPAD; K O M BHAVADASAN Vs. K O M SUMA, D/O LATE KALI ANTHARJANAM; STATE OF KERALA; DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS; ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants were respondents 4 and 5 in the Writ Petition. The first respondent herein was the writ petitioner. The dispute regarding the right to manage Aided U.P. School, Kulukkalloor was the subject matter of the Writ Petition. The brief facts of the case, as stated by the appellants, are the following:

(2.) The appellants submit that there was a family partition in the family of Sankaran Namboodiripad, who was the father of Bhavadasan Namboodiripad and Neelakantan Namboodiripad. In the family partition, C schedule properties were allotted to Parvathi Antharjanam, one of the wives of Bhavadasan Namboodiripad and the mother of the appellants. One of the C schedule items was the landed property in which the school was located. It is common ground that in the said schedule, the existence of the school was not mentioned. Parvathi Antharjanam executed a Will in 1975 bequeathing the property in which the school is located to the second appellant. She died on 27.10.1976. At the relevant time, the second appellant was working as a Journalist in Delhi. According to the appellants, though Parvathi Antharjanam and later second appellant, was the owner of the school, they did not object to the continuance of Neelakantan Namboodiripad and his wife as Manager of the school, as they were the elder members in the family. But, when motion was made by the first respondent/writ petitioner to approve her as Manager, the second appellant objected to the same and made a counter proposal for approval of appointment of first appellant as Manager. But, the A.E.O. by Ext.P9 order dated 13.8.2007 rejected the claim of the second appellant and upheld the motion made by the first respondent. He challenged Ext.P9 before the Director of Public Instruction. The D.P.I. by Ext.P1 order repelled the said challenge. Then the second appellant moved the Government in revision. The revision was allowed by the Government by Ext.P2 order dated 4.6.2009, upholding the claim of the second appellant. The relevant portion of the order reads as follows:

(3.) The first respondent herein filed the Writ Petition challenging Ext.P2 and seeking consequential reliefs. The first appellant/4th respondent filed a counter affidavit resisting the prayers in the Writ Petition. The first respondent/writ petitioner filed a reply affidavit. The learned Single Judge after hearing both sides held that, it is for the second appellant to establish his right to manage the school, since the school was managed all along by the family of the first respondent. It was ordered that she shall be allowed to continue as Manager till a decision is taken by the competent Civil Court in the dispute. Feeling aggrieved by the said direction, the appellants have preferred this Writ Appeal.