Anil Chandran v. Chelamattom Devaswom Bharana Samithi & others

OP(C) NO. 1691 OF 2022 1 ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS** **TUESDAY, THE 7[TH] DAY OF MARCH 2023 / 16TH PHALGUNA, 1944** **OP(C) NO. 1691 OF 2022** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OS 64/2014 OF SUB COURT,** ## **PERUMBAVOOR** ## **PETITIONER/S:** ANIL CHANDRAN AGED 29 YEARS S/O CHANDRAN, CHULLYKUDY HOUSE, NEAR CHELAMATTOM TEMPLE, CHELAMATTOM KARA, CHELAMATTOM VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK - 683 350, PIN - 683350 BY ADV P.THOMAS GEEVERGHESE ## **RESPONDENT/S:** 1 CHELAMATTOM DEVASWOM CHELAMATTOM KARA, CHELAMATTOM VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK, PIN 683 350 2 VASUDEVAN NAMBOOTHIRI AGED 62 YEARS S/O NARAYANAN NAMBOOTHIRI, KAPLINGATT ILLAM, CHELAMATTOM KARA, CHELAMATTOM VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK - PIN 683 350, REPRESENTING HIMSELF AND CHELAMATTOM DEVASWOM 3 KRISHNAN NAMBOOTHIRI, AGED 58 YEARS S/O KRISHNAN NAMBOOTHIRI, THOTTAMATTATH ILLAM, CHELAMATTOM KARA, CHELAMATTOM VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK (DIED) - PIN 683 350, REPRESENTING HIMSELF AND CHELAMATTOM DEVASWOM, PIN - 683350 OP(C) NO. 1691 OF 2022 2 4 NARAYANAN NAMBOOTHIRI AGED 40 YEARS S/O VASUDEVAN NAMBOOTHIRI, THOTTAMATTATH ILLAM, CHELAMATTOM KARA, CHELAMATTOM VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK PIN 683 350, REPRESENTING HIMSELF AND CHELAMATTOM DEVASWOM 5 NARAYANAN NAMBOOTHIRI AGED 39 YEARS S/O PARAMESWARAN NAMBOOTHIRI, KAPLINGATT ILLAM, CHELAMATTOM KARA, CHELAMATTOMVILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK PIN 683 350, REPRESENTING HIMSELF AND CHELAMATTOM DEVASWOM, PIN - 683350 6 NARAYANAN NAMBOOTHIRI AGED 39 YEARS S/O NARAYANAN NAMBOOTHIRI, THOTTAMATTATH ILLAM, CHELAMATTOM KARA, CHELAMATTOM VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK PIN 683 350, REPRESENTING HIMSELF AND CHELAMATTOM DEVASWOM, PIN - 683350 7 NEELAKANDAN NAMBOOTHIRI AGED 56 YEARS S/O KRISHNAN NAMBOOTHIRI, THOTTAMATTATH ILLAM, CHELAMATTOM KARA, CHELAMATTOM VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK PIN 683 350, REPRESENTING HIMSELF AND CHELAMATTOM DEVASWOM, PIN - 683350 8 CHELAMATTOM DEVASWOM BHARANASAMITHI REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT, CHELAMATTOM KARA, CHELAMATTOM VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK, PIN - 683350 9 NARAYANAN NARAYANAN NAMBOOTHIRI AGED 73 YEARS CHELAMATTOM DEVASWOM BHARANASAMITHI PRESIDENT, S/O NARAYANAN NAMBOOTHIRI, VALIYAMKOL ILLAM, CHELAMATTOM KARA, CHELAMATTOM VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK, PIN 683 350 10 A.P.KRISHNAN NAIR AGED 64 YEARS CHELAMATTOM DEVASWOM BHARANASAMITHI VICE PRESIDENT, S/O PARAMESWARAN NAIR, AMBATT HOUSE, OP(C) NO. 1691 OF 2022 3 CHELAMATTOM KARA, CHELAMATTOM VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNAD TALUK, PIN 683 350, PIN - 683350 11 P.S.VENUGOPAL AGED 61 YEARS TREASURER OF CHELAMATTOM DEVASWOM BHARANA SAMITHI, S/O GOPINATHAN NAIR, PURAKKANILLATH HOUSE, CHELAMATTOM KARA, CHELAMATTOM VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM, PIN 683 350, PIN - 683350 12 T.B. JAYAPRAKASH AGED 47 YEARS SECRETARY OF CHELAMATTOM DEVASWOM BHARANA SAMITHI, S/O BHASKARAN NAIR, THOZHELI HOUSE, CHELAMATTOM KARA, CHELAMATTOM VILLAGE, PIN 683 350 13 T.P.KARUNAKARAN NAIR AGED 66 YEARS, CHELAMATTOM DEVASWOM BHARANASAMITHI COMMITTEE MEMBER, S/O PADMANABHAN NAIR, THOZHELY HOUSE, CHELAMATTOM KARA, CHELAMATTOM VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK, PIN 683 350., PIN - 683350 14 P.R.SASIDHARAN NAIR AGED 67 YEARS, CHELAMATTOM DEVASWOM BHARANASAMITHI COMMITTEE MEMBER, S/O RAMAN NAIR, PULICKAYATH HOUSE, PERUMATTOM KARA, CHELAMATTOM VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK, PIN 683 350, PIN - 683350 15 A.V.VIJAYAN AGED 46 YEARS CHELAMATTOM DEVASWOM BHARANASAMITHI COMMITTEE MEMBER, S/O VELAYUDHAN NAIR, AMBATT HOUSE, CHELAMATTOM KARA, CHELAMATTOM VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK, PIN 683 350, PIN - 683350 16 P.N.THANKAPPAN AGED 67 YEARS CHELAMATTOM DEVASWOM BHARANASAMITHI COMMITTEE MEMBER, S/O NARAYANAN NAIR, VARICKAKKUZHY HOUSE, CHELAMATTOM KARA, CHELAMATTOM VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK, PIN 683 350., PIN - 683350 17 M.C.PRAKASH AGED 45 YEARS 4 OP(C) NO. 1691 OF 2022 CHELAMATTOM DEVASWOM BHARANASAMITHI COMMITTEE MEMBER, S/O CHANDRAN NAIR, AKATHEMADAM HOUSE, CHELAMATTOM KARA, CHELAMATTOM VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK, PIN 683 350., PIN - 683350 18 T.V.MOHANAN AGED 47 YEARS CHELAMATTOM DEVASWOM BHARANASAMITHI COMMITTEE MEMBER, THONOORU HOUSE, CHELAMATTOM KARA, CHELAMATTOM VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK, PIN 683 350., PIN - 683350 19 T.R.UNNIKRISHNAN AGED 48 YEARS CHELAMATTOM DEVASWOM BHARANASAMITHI COMMITTEE MEMBER, S/O RAMAN NAIR, THOZHELY HOUSE, CHELAMATTOM KARA, CHELAMATTOM VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK, PIN 683 350., PIN - 683350 20 MANOJ AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, S/O KUNJIKRISHNAN, THOZHELY HOUSE, CHELAMATTOM KARA, CHELAMATTOM VILLAGE, PIN 683 350., PIN - 683350 21 VINOD AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, S/O GOPINATHAN NAIR, THOZHELY HOUSE, CHELAMATTOM KARA, CHELAMATTOM VILLAGE, PIN 683 350., PIN - 683350 22 GOPALAKRISHNAN AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, S/O NARAYANAN NAIR, PADAAYATH (VARICKAKKUZHY) HOUSE, CHELAMATTOM KARA, CHELAMATTOM VILLAGE, PIN 683 350., PIN - 683350 23 SOMASUNDARAN AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, S/O KRISHNANKUTTY, PERUMATTATH HOUSE, CHELAMATTOM KARA, CHELAMATTOM VILLAGE, PIN 683 350., PIN - 683350 24 NARAYANAN PARAMESWARAN NAMBOOTHIRI AGED 66 YEARS S/O PARAMESWARAN NARAYANAN NAMBOOTHIRI, KAPLINGATT ILLAM, CHELAMATTOM KARA, CHELAMATTOM VILLAGE, 5 OP(C) NO. 1691 OF 2022 KUNNATHUNADU TALUK.(DIED), PIN - 683350 25 NARAYANAN VASUDEVAN NAMBOOTHIRI AGED 75 YEARS S/O NARAYANAN NAMBOOTHIRI, THOTTAMATTATH ILLAM, CHELAMATTOM KARA, CHELAMATTOM VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK, PIN 683 350. *(DELETED) 26 SASIDHARAN NAIR AGED 62 YEARS S/O AMBATT PARAMESWARAN NAIR, CHELAMATTOM KARA, CHELAMATTOM VILLAGE, PIN 683 350., PIN - 683350 27 SATHEESH KUMAR AGED 42 YEARS S/O AMBATT SREEKANDAN NAIR, CHELAMATTOM KARA, CHELAMATTOM VILLAGE, PIN 683 350., PIN - 683350 28 NARAYANAN NAMBOOTHIRI AGED 52 YEARS S/O NARAYANAN NAMBOOTHIRI, KAPLINGATT ILLAM, CHELAMATTOM KARA, CHELAMATTOM VILLAGE, PIN 683 350, PIN - 683350 29 SUBRAHMANYAN NAMBOOTHIRI AGED 59 YEARS S/O KRISHNAN NAMBOOTHIRI, THOTTAMATTATH ILLAM, CHELAMATTOM KARA, CHELAMATTOM VILLAGE, PIN 683 350., PIN - 683350 30 UNNIKRISHNAN NAMBOOTHIRI AGED 44 YEARS S/O VASUDEVAN NAMBOOTHIRI, THOTTAMATTATH ILLAM, CHELAMATTOM KARA, CHELAMATTOM VILLAGE, PIN 683 350., PIN - 683350 31 VASUDEVAN NAMBOOTHIRI AGED 42 YEARS S/O VASUDEVAN NAMBOOTHIRI, THOTTAMATTATH ILLAM, CHELAMATTOM KARA, CHELAMATTOM VILLAGE, PIN 683 350., PIN - 683350 32 NEELAKANDAN NAMBOOTHIRI AGED 62 YEARS OP(C) NO. 1691 OF 2022 6 S/O KRISHNAN NAMBOOTHIRI, THOTTAMATTATH ILLAM, CHELAMATTOM KARA, CHELAMATTOM VILLAGE, PIN 683 350., PIN - 683350 33 MURALEEDHARAN AGED 39 YEARS S/O THOZHELY BHASKARAN NAIR, CHELAMATTOM KARA, CHELAMATTOM VILLAGE, PIN 683 350., PIN - 683350 34 A.G.BHASKARAN NAIR AGED 62 YEARS S/O GOPALAN NAIR, AMBATT HOUSE, CHELAMATTOM, OKKAL P.O, 683 350. *(DELETED) 35 M.C.PRASAD AGED 43 YEARS S/O CHANDRAN NAIR, AKATHEMADOM HOUSE, CHELAMATTOM KARA, CHELAMATTOM VILLAGE, PIN 683 350, PIN - 683350 36 SASIKUMAR AGED 52 YEARS S/O DAMODHARAN NAIR, KONGANPARAMBIL HOUSE, CHELAMATTOM KARA, CHELAMATTOM VILLAGE, PIN 683 350., PIN - 683350 37 T.R.SUNILKUMAR AGED 38 YEARS S/O RADHAKRISHNA MENON, THOZHAYALIL HOUSE, CHELAMATTOM KARA, CHELAMATTOM VILLAGE, PIN 683 350. * RESPONDENTS 25 AND 34 ARE DELETED FROM THE PARTY ARRAY AS PER ORDER DATED 30.01.2023 IN I.A.NO. 2/2023., PIN - 683350 BY ADVS. AJITH VISWANATHAN C.Harikumar . Vinod Bhat S G.RAJAGOPAL G ANAGHA LAKSHMY RAMAN(K/000767/2015) GREESHMA CHANDRIKA.R(K/807/2020) V.V.SADANANDAN (SREEMOOLANAGARAM)(K/278/1995) 7 OP(C) NO. 1691 OF 2022 SANDRA SUNNY(K/926/2020) ARUN KUMAR M.A(K/1197/2021) S.LEELALAKSHMI(K/148/1994) THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07.03.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: OP(C) NO. 1691 OF 2022 8 ## **JUDGMENT** The original petition is filed challenging Ext.P9 order passed in IA No.8/2021 in OS No.64/2014 by the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Perumbavoor. The petitioner is a third party in the suit. The respondents are the plaintiffs and the defendants before the court below. 2. The relevant antecedent facts, leading to Ext.P9 order, are: - (i) The respondents 1 to 6 have filed the suit against the respondents 7 to 37, under Order 1 Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short, 'Code'), to divest the administration of the Chelamattam Devaswom from the Chelamattam Devaswom Bharana Samithi, and vest the administration with the elders of the three Namboothiri families which claim oorayma rights OP(C) NO. 1691 OF 2022 **==> picture [7 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** over the scheduled temples and for other consequential reliefs. - (ii) The petitioner has averred in the original petition that Chelamattom Devaswom is owned by three Malayalam Brahmin families named Kippangattu Illam, Thottamattathu Illam and Valiyamkovil Illam, and the Devaswom is to be administered by the eldest male members of the three families. - (iii) The respondents 1 to 6 are the junior members of the three families, who are expected to assent onto the administration of the Devaswom in the future. - (iv) The respondents 1 to 6 have alleged in the plaint - that the Valiyamkovil Illam has illegally entrusted the administration of the Devaswom to the 8[th] respondent Bharana Samithi, which is against the scheme framed by the Court of the OP(C) NO. 1691 OF 2022 **==> picture [13 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** Additional District Judge, North Paravoor in OS No.62/1960. - (v) As per the decree, the administration of the Devaswom has to be entrusted with the three families and the Devaswom is only a private trust. - (vi) The petitioner is the Store Keeper of Chelamattam Sreekrishnaswami Temple. He represents the other employees of the Devaswom. The respondents 1 to 6 have not impleaded the workers of the Devaswom Temples as parties in the suit. - (vii) Hence, the petitioner filed IA No.8/2021 (Ext.P6) to get himself impleaded in the suit. He has also filed a written statement in the suit. The 5[th] - respondent has objected to Ext.P6 application. - (viii) The court below, by the impugned Ext.P9 order, OP(C) NO. 1691 OF 2022 11 has rejected Ext.P6 application. (ix) Ext.P9 order is perse illegal and unsustainable in law. Hence, the original petition. 3. Heard; Sri.P.Thomas Geevarghese, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri Ajith Viswanathan, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents 2 and 5, Sri.C.Harikumar, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents 26 to 32, Sri.S.Vinod Bhat, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent No.33 and Sri.G.Rajagopal, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent No.37. 4. The short point is whether there is any illegality in Ext.P9 order. 5. Ext.P1 plaint is instituted by the respondents 1 to 6, for a declaration that they have a right to manage the Chelamattom Devaswom. The suit is filed after obtaining OP(C) NO. 1691 OF 2022 12 permission under Order 1 Rule 8 of the Code. 6. The petitioner has filed Ext.P6 application to get himself impleaded as the additional defendant in the suit, on the assertion that, he is an employee of a Temple under the Devaswom and is an interested person. But, the respondents 1 to 6 have not impleaded all the interested persons in the suit. The fourth category of persons i.e., the employees of the Devaswom Temples have been conspicuously excluded from the plaint, who are 36 in number and none of them have been impleaded in the suit. The present management of the Temple is a democratic institution, and if it is replaced, it would lead to dictatorship, which in turn would adversely affect the rights of the petitioners and other similarly situated persons. Hence, the petitioner may be impleaded as an additional defendant in the suit. 7. The application was opposed by 5[th] respondent OP(C) NO. 1691 OF 2022 13 ## through Ext.P8 counter statement. ## 8. The court below, by the impugned Ext.P9 order, rejected Ext.P6 application holding thus: “7. From the crux of the suit, it can be seen that, suit is with respect to administration of temple namely Chelamattom Devaswom. Plaintiffs filed the suit for transferring the administration of temple from the present committee to plaintiffs on the basis of a scheme as per the judgment and decree in OS No.62/1960. So as to decide whether plaintiffs are entitled to get administration of the temple, it is to be considered whether such scheme is in existence or whether as per the scheme, plaintiffs are entitled to get administration of the temple. It can be seen that, as admitted by the petitioner in this petition, members of three Illams, member of present administrative committee and devotees of Chelamattom Temple are parties in the suit. Petitioner herein wants to implead him as additional defendant as the representative of 4[th] class of person namely employees of Chelamattom Devaswom. It is needless to say that, employees of Devaswoms have no say in the administration of temple. They have nothing to do with the administration of temple. They are employees obliged to work as per the direction and rules of the Devaswom and hence, they cannot be considered as a necessary party or proper party in OP(C) NO. 1691 OF 2022 14 this suit. Hence, this petition is only to be dismissed.” ## 9. Sub-Rules (1) and (2) of the Rule 8 of the Order 1 of Code of Civil Procedure **,** reads as follows: 8. One person may sue or defend on behalf of all in same interest. ## **(1) Where there are numerous persons having** **the same interest in one suit,-** (a) one or more of such persons may, with the permission of the Court, sue or be sued, or may defend such suit, on behalf of, or for the benefit of, all persons so interested; (b) the Court may direct that one or more of such persons may sue or be sued, or may defend such suit, on behalf of, or for the benefit of, all persons so interested. (2) The Court shall, in every case where a permission or direction is given under sub-rule (1), at the plaintiff’s expense, give notice of the institution of the suit to all persons so interested either by personal service, or, where, by reason of the number of persons or any other cause, such service is not reasonably practicable, by public advertisement, as the Court in each case may direct. OP(C) NO. 1691 OF 2022 **==> picture [13 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** 10. A reading of the above extracted provision shows that **numerous persons** having the **same interest in the suit,** may be sued or defended on behalf of all. 11. In the case on hand, the suit is filed by the respondents 1 to 6 against the denial of the rights of two families in the administration of the affairs of the Chelamattom Devaswom Temples. On a con-joint reading of the above provision and the averments in the plaint, the interest in the suit is regarding the divesting of powers of the two families in the administration of the Devaswom Temples and nothing more or nothing less. 12. On the contrary, the averments in Ext.P6 application establish that the petitioner wants to espouse the cause of the employees of the Devaswom Temples, for which purpose he wants to get impleaded in the suit. 13. On a comparison of the plaint and Ext.P6 OP(C) NO. 1691 OF 2022 **==> picture [13 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** application, this Court has no doubt in its mind that the interest in the plaint and the application are not one and the same, which is the principle ingredient to get oneself impleaded in a suit invoking Order 1 Rule 8 of the code. 14. In **Sudhamai Patnaik and others vs. Bihu Prasad Sahu and others** [2022 SCC Online SC 1234], the Honourable Supreme Court has categorically held that a party can be impleaded in a suit either suo-motu by the Court or at the instance of the plaintiff. 15. There is a distinction between the provisions under Order 1 Rule 10 and Order 1 Rule 8 of the Code. Nonetheless, the interest of the person seeking to get impleaded is mandatory. 16. On a conspectus of the pleadings and materials on record, the law on the point and findings rendered above, this Court endorses the findings of the court below that the petitioner is not a necessary party in the OP(C) NO. 1691 OF 2022 **==> picture [13 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** suit and, therefore, cannot aspire to get himself impleaded in the suit under Order 1 Rule 8 of the Code. 17. It is trite; the exercise of the power of superintendence of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is to keep the Courts of the District Judicature within their bounds of authority. The High Court is not vested with any unlimited prerogative to correct all decisions made within the limits of the jurisdiction of the subordinate courts. The exercise of this power and interfering with the orders of the courts is restricted to cases of serious dereliction of duty and flagrant violation of fundamental principles of law or justice, where if the High Court does not interfere, a grave injustice remains uncorrected. It is also nigh settled that while acting under this Article, the High Court is not acting as an appellate court to substitute its judgment in place of the subordinate courts. OP(C) NO. 1691 OF 2022 **==> picture [13 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** On an overall consideration of the matter, this Court holds that the court below has not over stepped its powers of authority, warranting invocation of powers of superintendence of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The original petition fails and is resultantly dismissed. Sd/- **C.S.DIAS JUDGE** rkc/07.03.23 OP(C) NO. 1691 OF 2022 19 ## **APPENDIX OF OP(C) 1691/2022** PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF PLAINT IN OS 64 OF 2014 OF SUB COURT PERUMBAVOOR - Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY THE DEFENDANTS 4 TO 6 IN OS 64 OF 2014 OF SUB COURT PERUMBAVOOR - Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY THE DEFENDANTS 10, 13 TO 23 IN OS 64 OF 2014 OF SUB COURT PERUMBAVOOR - Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY THE DEFENDANTS 11 AND 12 IN OS 64 OF 2014 OF SUB COURT PERUMBAVOOR - Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY THE DEFENDANTS 34 TO 37 IN OS 64 OF 2014 OF SUB COURT PERUMBAVOOR - Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF IA 8/21 IN OS 64 OF 2014 OF SUB COURT PERUMBAVOOR 1ST DEFENDANT FILED BY THE PETITION - Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY THE 1ST DEFENDANTS IN OS 64 OF 2014 OF SUB COURT PERUMBAVOOR - Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF OBJECTION FILED BY THE 5TH DEFENDANT IN OS 64 OF 2014 OF SUB COURT PERUMBAVOOR - Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF ORDER IN IA 8/21 IN OS 64 OF 2014 OF SUB COURT PERUMBAVOOR DATED 11.08.2022