JANARDHANAM PANICKER Vs. KUNJULEKSHMI AMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants 1 and 2/original plaintiffs in O.S.No.359 of 2008 have filed this appeal challenging the judgment and decree passed in A.S.No.81 of 2012 on the file of the Camp Court, II Additional Subordinate Judge, Nagercoil, Kuzhithurai, confirming the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.359 of 2008 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Kuzhithurai.

(2.) For the sake of convenience and brevity, the parties herein after shall be referred to as per their status/ranking before the trial Court.

(3.) The brief averments made in the plaint are as follows :- The original plaintiffs in O.S.No.359 of 2008 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Kuzhithurai are the appellants 1 & 2 before this Court. The first appellant is the son of Madu Panickar and the second appellant is the son of Kuttan Panicker. The original plaintiffs filed a suit for mandatory injunction directing the defendants to return the subject matter of the suit namely, the idol to the plaintiffs. One Madu Panickar, who is the father of the first plaintiff and grand-father of the second plaintiff had three sons namely, Janarthanan Panickar, Kuttan Panickar, Ramakrishan Panickar and he constructed Bhadrakali Temple at Piracode Kuriyanvila for their family worship and in the said self constructed temple, he installed two Bhadrakali idols. During his life time, he performed poojas and administrated the temple affairs. After his demise, his sons performed the poojas and also managed the temple affairs. In such circumstances, one of the sons of the said Madu Panickar, namely, Ramakrishan Panickar died and hence, the remaining sons performed poojas in the said temple. The seventh respondent, namely, Sudeson, is the son of the above said Ramakrishan Panickar. The husband of first defendant, namely, Raman Pillai, and the third defendant, namely, Velayutham Pillai, approached Kuttan Panickar and expressed their desire to take one of the idols from Kuriyanvila Bhadrakali Temple to their temple at Devicode for performing poojas and conducting a festival namely, "Devicode Movoo Parambu". The sons of Madu Panickar agreed to the same and entered into a registered agreement on 28/2/1958 on certain terms and conditions. One of the idols was handed over to the husband of the first defendant and the third defendant. In the said agreement, there is a specific clause that the idol is to be returned if any demand is made by the plaintiffs' family. Some other terms were also incorporated in the agreement relating to the sharing of the amount offered by the devotees. The perpetual ownership of the idols is with the family of the plaintiffs and there was a special clause relating to transfer the idol to another place only with the consent of the plaintiffs. That being the situation, in the year 2008, the plaintiffs' families renovated their temple and planned to perform kumbabhishekam, on 2/6/2008. To perform kumbabhishekam, they required the idol, which was already given to the husband of the first defendant and the third defendant. Therefore, they approached the family members of them and thereafter, came to know that the said idol is installed in "Parthivapuram Bhadrakali Temple, which belonged to the defendants 4 to 6 and hence, the plaintiffs issued a notice to them to return the said idol. Since, there was no response, they filed a suit for return of the idol.