CHELLAMMA Vs. SANTHIMADAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision under challenge arises from a proceedings under O.21 R.32 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Thirteen out of sixteen judgment debtors proceeded against for violating a decree of perpetual prohibitory injunction passed by the learned Munsiff, Nedumangad in OS No. 252 of 2002, are the revision petitioners. The 1st and 3rd judgment debtors had passed away during the pendency of the proceedings and the 14th judgment debtor is stated to be serving as a soldier in Armed Forces. The dispute involved in the suit, admittedly, related over the administration of a family temple, the 1st respondent in the revision, which was the 1st plaintiff in the suit. The parties in the proceedings, the decree holders and the judgment debtors, are members of a family having right and interest over the 1st plaintiff temple. The property comprising the 1st plaintiff temple belonged to one Bhaskara Pillai, and on his death, his widow, who got absolute right, title and possession over the same pursuant to release of rights in her favour by the children, executed a settlement deed dedicating the temple for the benefit of the family with direction that the senior most member of the family shall carry out its administration. Suit was laid by the 2nd plaintiff as the Secretary of a Committee in administration of the temple for a perpetual prohibitory injunction to restrain the defendants from interfering with his right to manage the temple. On the date of filing of the suit, the 1st defendant was the senior most member of the family entitled to be in administration of the temple as per the terms of the settlement deed. Since the 1st defendant was infirm and weak, he permitted the 2nd plaintiff to carry out the administration of the temple, was the case of the 2nd plaintiff apart from his entitlement as Secretary of the temple Committee to seek a decree of injunction against that defendant also, with other family members, who were arrayed as defendants in that suit. Suit was decreed granting a perpetual prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the right of the 2nd plaintiff in managing the affairs of the plaint schedule property and the 1st plaintiff temple.

(2.) The decree holders / plaintiffs, later, initiated proceedings against the judgment debtors by filing a petition under O.21 R.32 of the CPC. The judgment debtors resisted the application contending that a new Executive Committee had been elected by the family members for administration of the temple, and in fact, that Committee was prevented by the 2nd decree holder from effectively managing the temple. In the enquiry over the proceedings, PWs 1 and 2 were examined and Ext. A1 exhibited on the side of the decree holders. CPW 1 and CPW 2 were examined on the side of the judgment debtors. A report filed by the Circle Inspector of Police examined as PW 1 was also exhibited in evidence as Ext. C1. The learned Munsiff, after examining the materials produced and hearing the counsel on both sides, came to the conclusion that the judgment debtors had violated the decree of injunction, and on such finding, all the judgment debtors were directed to be detained in civil prison for a period of one month each. A further direction was also made directing the office bearers of the present temple committee to handover the key of the temple and the hundi and surrender the possession of the plaint schedule property to the 2nd decree holder, who was also allowed to realise the costs of the proceedings from the judgment debtors. Propriety and correctness of the order so passed by the learned Munsiff is impeached in the revision.

(3.) I heard the counsel on both sides. Perusing the order passed by the learned Munsiff, it is evident that no attempt was made to examine the scope of the decree granted in the suit in favour of the decree holders and how far the proceeding under O.21 R.32 of the CPC would lie against the judgment debtors on the imputations levelled as to their disobedience or violation of the decree of injunction. The first decree holder, admittedly, a family temple belonged to the parties in the suit, and it was represented by the second decree holder. The second decree holder evidently filed the suit as the Secretary of a Committee constituted by the family members for administration of the temple. Though the settlement deed mandated administration of the temple by the senior most member of the family, who at the time of filing of the suit was the first defendant, it was the case of the second plaintiff that a committee was constituted by the family members and he was its Secretary inCharge of the administration of the temple. He had a further case that the first defendant, the senior most member, was infirm, and as such that defendant permitted him to administer the management of the temple. During the pendency of the suit the first defendant passed away, and the second plaintiff became the senior most member of the family. Be that as it may, the suit was instituted for the relief claimed on the basis that the second plaintiff was the Secretary of the committee constituted by the family members for administration of the temple. The judgment debtors disputed the imputations against them as to violation of the decree contending that a new committee had been formed by the family members after the passing of the decree and it is in management of the temple. The learned Munsiff without examining the merit of that contention with reference to the decree of injunction passed in the suit in favour of the second plaintiff accepted the case canvassed by him that he alone is entitled to administer the affairs of the temple and any interference with his right to do so by the judgment debtors who are admittedly family members having interest over the temple amounted to flouting of the decree of injunction passed in the suit. Though the second decree holder on the death of the first defendant during the pendency of the suit became the senior most member of the family and, thus, entitled to have the right to administer the temple as per the terms of the settlement deed, that was never a question adjudicated upon in the suit as the claim for decree of injunction was canvassed by him as the Secretary of the committee elected by the family members to manage the temple. When a committee had been formed to administer the temple by the family members, whatever be the terms provided under the settlement for its administration, with none of the family members having objection to the formation of such committee, that is a material circumstance which has to be appreciated and taken due note of by the Court in ascertaining the scope of the decree of injunction granted in the suit. Unfortunately, the learned Munsiff proceeded with the enquiry even raising points for determination as if the judgment debtors are accused persons liable to be tried and punished for disobedience of the decree of injunction. The first point raised for determination in the proceeding reads thus: