M SATHI DEVI Vs. VISWA HINDU PARISHAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff in O. S. No. 379 of 2008 on the file of the First additional Sub Court, Ernakulam is the Writ Petitioner. She challenges the order passed by the trial court in I. A. No. 2819 of 2008 as well as the judgment in C. M. A. No. 86 of 2008 on the file of the court of the District Judge of Ernakulam.

(2.) THE suit was filed for a declaration that the first defendant is not having any right to administer Sree bhuvaneswary temple and that the administration of the said temple and its properties vest with the descendants of the founder of the temple, namely, Mudakkodil Krishna Menon. There is also a prayer for declaration that the registered deed of appointment of the year 1992 executed by late Ammu Amma, one of the daughters of the said late Mudakkodil Krishna Menon is void and that she has no competency to execute such a document as she is one of the trustees. I. A. No. 2819 of 2008 was filed by the petitioner/plaintiff against the first defendant for a temporary injunction restraining the first defendant from interfering with the administration of the temple. The trial court dismissed the application. The trial court held that the documents produced in the case would show that the first defendant has been managing the day to day affairs of the temple for the past 16 years. The balance of convenience was found to be in favour of the first defendant and in not granting the temporary injunction. It was also held that no prima facie case exists for granting temporary injunction. The petitioner filed C. M. A. No. 86 of 2008 before the District Court, Ernakulam, challenging the order passed by the trial court. The lower appellate court confirmed the order passed by the trial court. The appellate court held that the question whether the document executed in 1954 which is styled as a sale deed is really a trust deed, is to be decided in the suit. So also, the question whether a private trust was created by Krishna Menon by executing the document in the year 1954 or whether a public trust was so created can be decided only after taking evidence. It was also held by the lower appellate court that Exts. B1 to B16 would show that the respondent is conducting the festivals and other functions in the temple right from 1997 onwards. It was also held that the real dispute involved in the case could be decided only after taking evidence. The appellate court thought that it is not feasible to grant a temporary injunction as prayed for.

(3.) THE courts below concurrently held that it is not just and proper to grant the temporary injunction prayed for by the petitioner. There is no scope for interference in the Writ Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. I am of the view that the courts below rightly came to the conclusion that the petitioner is not entitled to the temporary injunction as prayed for. The courts below have also taken note of the prima facie case and the balance of convenience and arrived at the correct conclusion on the basis of the materials on record. The trial court shall make every endeavour to dispose of the suit expeditiously. Accordingly, The Writ Petition is dismissed.