K.N. Anirudhan and others v. Kayippuram Poojaveli Sree Maha Vishnu Kshethrayogam and others

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. BABU** **WEDNESDAY, THE 16[TH] DAY OF MARCH 2022 / 25TH PHALGUNA, 1943** ## **OP(C) NO. 363 OF 2022** **AGAINST THE ORDERIN I.A.NO.23/2022 IN OS 9/2021 OF PRINCIPAL** ## **MUNSIFF'S COURT, CHERTHALA** ## **PETITIONERS/PETITIONERS IN THE I.A:** 1 K.N. ANIRUDHAN, S/O. NARAYANAN, AGED 66 YEARS, KOCHUVELI, CHARAMANGALAM MURI, MUHAMMA P.O., ALAPPUZHA, PIN – 688523. 2 V.K. ANDAPPAN, EDAPPARAMBU, THENNEERMUKKOM THEKKU VILLAGE, CHARAMANGALAM MURI, MUHAMMA P.O., ALAPPUZHA, PIN – 688523. 3 BAIJU,S/O.THANKAPPAN, VELIYIL, THENNEERMUKKOM THEKKU VILLAGE, CHARAMANGALAM MURI, MUHAMMA P.O., ALAPPUZHA, PIN – 688523. 4 P.M. SHIBU, S/O MANI, PULICKAL, THANNEERMUKKOM VADAKKU VILLAGE, VARANAM MURI, VARANAM P.O., ALAPPUZHA, PIN – 688555. 5 SHAJI, PEEDIKAVELI, THANNEERMUKKOM THEKKU VILLAGE, CHARAMANGALAM MURI, MUHAMMA P.O., ALAPPUZHA, PIN – 688523. 6 BINU C, ASARIPARAMBIL,THANNEERMUKKOM THEKKU VILLAGE, CHARAMANGALAM MURI, MUHAMMA P.O., ALAPPUZHA, PIN – 688523. 7 C.P. CHIDAMBARAN, CHALUVELI, THANNEERMUKKOM THEKKU VILLAGE, CHARAMANGALAM MURI, MUHAMMA P.O., ALAPPUZHA, PIN – 688523. 8 UMAKANTHAN, MOOLAMKUZHI, THANNEERMUKKOM THEKKU VILLAGE, CHARAMANGALAM MURI, MUHAMMA P.O., ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 688523 9 SASI, S/O. DAMU, THARAVELI, THANNEERMUKKOM THEKKU VILLAGE, CHARAMANGALAM MURI, MUHAMMA P.O., ALAPPUZHA, PIN – 688523. 10 SABU,S/O. KUTTAPPAN, KARANTHAKARACKAL, THANNEERMUKKOM THEKKU VILLAGE, CHARAMANGALAM MURI, MUHAMMA P.O., ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 688523 O.P(C) No.363 of 2022 2 11 N.P.PRASANNAN, S/O.PRABHAKARAN, NADUVILEMURI, THANNEERMUKKOM THEKKU VILLAGE, CHARAMANGALAM MURI, MUHAMMA P.O.,PIN - 688523 12 T.V. THAMPI, S/O.VISWANATHAN, THOTTUPURATHU, THANNEERMUKKOM THEKKU VILLAGE, CHARAMANGALAM MURI, MUHAMMA P.O., ALAPPUZHA, PIN – 688523. 13 SUDERSANAN,S/O. VELAYUDHAN, VELIPARAMBU, THANNEERMUKKOM THEKKU VILLAGE, CHARAMANGALAM MURI, MUHAMMA P.O., ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 688523 BY ADVS. K.P.SATHEESAN P.MOHANDAS (ERNAKULAM) K.SUDHINKUMAR S.K.ADHITHYAN SABU PULLAN GOKUL D. SUDHAKARAN ## **RESPONDENTS/COUNTER PETITIONERS:** 1 KAYIPPURAM POOJAVELI SREE MAHA VISHNU KSHETHRAYOGAM, CHARAMANGALAM MURI, THANNEERMUKKOM SOUTH VILLAGE, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT:V.K.PRASANNAN, EDAPARAMBIL, MUHAMMA P.O., CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 688525 2 TREASURER:- T.A. PARAMESARAN, MEENATHEVELY, MUHAMMA P.O., ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 688525 3 COUNCIL MEMBER:- C.K. ASHOKAN, CHELATTUVELY, MUHAMMA.P.O., ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 688525 4 N.C. RAJENDRAN, NADUVATHARAVELY, MUHAMMA.P.O., ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 688525 5 V.T. VINOD, S/O. THANKAPPAN, VAVAKATTUVELY, MUHAMMA.P.O., ALAPPUZHA, PIN – 688525 (D1) 6 K.N. NARAYANAN, A/O. KOCHU NANI, NISHA SADANAM, MUHAMMA.P.O., ALAPPUZHA, PIN – 688525 (D2) O.P(C) No.363 of 2022 3 7 SAJI M.D, S/O. DASAN, MATTATHIL, MUHAMMA P.O., ALAPPUZHA, PIN – 688525 (D3) 8 MURALEEDHARAN, S/O.PURUSHOTHAMAN, KAYIPPURAM, MUHAMMA.P.O., ALAPPUZHA, PIN – 688525 (D4) BY ADVS. T.JAYAKRISHNAN C.SIVADAS R.KRISHNAKUMAR (CHERTHALA) THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16.03.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: O.P(C) No.363 of 2022 4 ## K.BABU, J . -------------------------------------O.P(C) No.363 of 2022 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 16[th] day of March, 2022 ## JUDGMENT The prayers in the Original Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India are as follows: - “(i) To set aside Ext.P8 order dated 25.01.2022 in I.A.No.23/2022 in O.S.No.9/2021 of the Principal Munsiff's Court, Cherthala; - (ii) To declare that the petitioners are entitled to get themselves impleaded as additional defendants in O.S.No.9/2021 for the purpose of defending the suit and also for protecting the interest of the entire members of the temple; - (iii) To issue such other appropriate order or direction as is deemed just and necessary in the circumstances of the case.” 2. The matter relates to the management of Kayippuram Poojaveli Sree Maha Vishnu Kshethram. The petitioners are strangers, who sought to be impleaded as additional defendants in the Original Suit. 3. The original suit was filed for a declaration that defendants 1 and 2 ceased to have the right to hold the post of the Secretary and Joint Secretary respectively of the Managing O.P(C) No.363 of 2022 5 Committee of the Temple. 4. During the course of proceedings, the petitioners filed I.A.No.23/2022 seeking to implead them as supplemental defendants. As per Ext.P8 order, the Trial Court dismissed the application. The said order is under challenge in this original petition. 5. Heard Sri.K.P.Satheesan, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri.T.Jayakrishnan, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 6. The original suit was filed under Order 1 Rule 8 of CPC. Dispute relating to the management of the Temple is the subject matter. 7. The petitioners claimed that they were the members of the Ad-hoc Committee elected by the general body on 19.12.2021. According to the petitioners, the administration of the Temple is in a standstill and the devotees are in a state of utter dismay and confusion. They contended that they are necessary parties in the original suit. 8. The plaintiffs/respondents resisted the application O.P(C) No.363 of 2022 6 contending that the petitioners are the men sponsored by defendant No.1 and they shared the intention that the accounts of the Devaswom shall not come before the Court and keep the plaintiffs away from the administration of the Devaswom. 9. The Court below found that the petitioners failed to convince the court that they are interested in the proper administration of the Devaswom. 10. This is a representative suit relating to the administration of a Temple that attracts thousands of worshippers. 11. The Apex Court in Vidur Impex & Traders (P) Ltd. v. Tosh Apartments (P) Ltd., (AIR 2012 SC 2925) enumerated the principles, which should govern disposal of an application for impleadment, as follows: “(i) The Court can, at any stage of the proceedings, either on an application made by the parties or otherwise, direct impleadment of any person as party, who ought to have been joined as Plaintiff or Defendant or whose presence before the Court is necessary for effective and complete adjudication of the issues involved in the Suit. (ii) A necessary party is the person who ought to be joined as party to the Suit and in whose absence an effective decree cannot be passed by the Court. (iii) A proper party is a person whose presence would enable the Court to completely, effectively and properly adjudicate upon all matters and issues, though he may not be a person in favour of or against whom a decree is O.P(C) No.363 of 2022 7 to be made. - (iv) If a person is not found to be a proper or necessary party, the Court does not have the jurisdiction to order his impleadment against the wishes of the plaintiff.” ## 12. Madras High Court in Mahadeva Rice and Oil Mills Vs. ## Chennaimalai Goudee (AIR 1968 Mad.287) set forth the following tests for an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC: - (a) If, for the adjudication of the real controversy between the parties on record, the presence of a third party is necessary, then he can be impleaded.. - (b) It is imperative to note that, by such impleading of the proposed party, all controversies arising in the suit and all issues arising thereunder may be finally determined and set at rest, thereby avoiding multiplicity of suits over a subject matter, which could still have been decided in the pending suit itself. - (c) The proposed party has a defined, subsisting, direct and substantive interest in the litigation, which interest is either legal or equitable and which right is cognizable in law. - (d) Meticulous care should be taken to avoid the adding of a party if it is intended merely as a ruse to ventilate certain other grievances of one or the other of the parties on record, which is neither necessary or expedient to be considered by the court in the pending litigation; and - (e) It should always be remembered that considerable prejudice would be caused to the opposite party when irrelevant matters are allowed to be considered by courts by adding a new party whose interest has no nexus to the subject matter of the suit. ## 13. This Court in P.V.George v. M/s. Bank of Madurai Ltd. (1985 KLJ 999) held that the Court has the discretion to implead a party even if it is opposed by the plaintiff in a case where it is O.P(C) No.363 of 2022 8 found that justice cannot be done without the applicant being in the party array. It was further held that to get impleaded, the party sought to be impleaded should have a direct interest, a legal interest and not a mere commercial interest. 14. In the present case, it cannot be concluded that the petitioners are not interested in the affairs of the Temple. For the adjudication of the real controversy between the parties, this Court feels that the presence of the petitioners is necessary. The petitioners have defined, subsisting, direct and substantive interest in the litigation. There is nothing to show that the attempt of the petitioners is a ruse to ventilate any other grievances that may go against the interest of the Temple. 15. The learned counsel for the respondents fairly submitted that the petitioners are only entitled to be impleaded in their personal capacity. 16. On a perusal of Ext.R1(a) application, it is seen that the petitioners have prayed for getting them impleaded in their individual capacity. Therefore, the impugned order dated 25.01.2022 passed by the Trial Court is liable to be set aside. O.P(C) No.363 of 2022 9 17. Accordingly, I.A.No.23/2022 is allowed. The petitioners are ordered to be impleaded as additional defendants.. The Original Petition is allowed as above. Sd/K.BABU, JUDGE KAS O.P(C) No.363 of 2022 10 ## **APPENDIX OF OP(C) 363/2022** |PETITIONER EXHIBITS|PETITIONER EXHIBITS| |---|---| |Exhibit-P1|TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S.NO.| ||9/2021 FILED BY RESPONDENTS 1 TO 4| ||BEFORE THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, CHERTHALA| |Exhibit-P2|TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON ORDER DATED 17-| ||11-2021 IN I.A.NO. 14/2021, I.A.NO.| ||16/2021 AND I.A.NO. 9/2021 IN O.S.NO.| ||9/2021 OF THE PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF'S| ||COURT, CHERTHALA| |Exhibit-P3|TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 22-12-| ||2021 IN O.P.(C)NO. 2392/2021| |Exhibit-P4|TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE| ||BYE-LAW OF KAYIPURAM POOJAVELI SRI MAHA| ||VISHNU TEMPLE KSHETHRAYOGAM| |Exhibit-P5|TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE GIVEN BY THE| ||102 MEMBERS TO THE 5TH RESPONDENT DATED| ||26-11-2021| |Exhibit-P6|TRUE COPY OF THE PUBLIC NOTICE ISSUED| ||BY THE 102 MEMBERS OF THE KAIPPURAM| ||POOJAVELI SRI MAHA VISHNU KSHETHRA| ||YOGAM DATED 12-12-2021| |Exhibit-P7|TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE GENERAL| ||BODY MEETING HELD ON 19-12-2021| |Exhibit-P8|TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON ORDER DATED 25-| ||01-2022 IN I.A.NO. 22/2022 AND I.A.NO.| ||23/2022 IN O.S.NO. 9/2021 OF THE| ||PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF'S COURT, CHERTHALA| |Exhibit-P9|TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 18-12-2021| ||IN I.A.NO. 21/2021 IN O.S.NO. 9/2021 OF| ||THE PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF’S COURT,| ||CHERTHALA| |RESPONDENT EXHIBITS|| |EXHIBIT R-1(a)|A TRUE COPY OF I.A.NO.23/2022 FILED BY| ||THE PETITIONERS IN O.S.NO.9/2021.| |EXHIBIT R-1(b)|A TRUE COPY OF OBJECTION FILED BY THE| ||PLAINTIFFS TO IMPLEADMENT PETITION| |EXHIBIT R-1(C)|A TRUE COPY OF NOTICE PUBLISHED BY THE| ||1ST DEFENDANT/SECRETARY ABOUT THE| ||GENERAL BODY PROPOSED TO BE CONVENED AS| ||DIRECTED BY COURT ON 13.02.2022.| O.P(C) No.363 of 2022 11 - EXHIBIT R-1(d) A TRUE COPY OF I.A.NO.28/2022 FILED BY THE PLAINTIFFS IN O.S.NO.9/2021 SEEKING DIRECTIONS TO ALLOW PARTICIPATION OF ALL MEMBERS. EXHIBIT R-1(e) A TRUE COPY OF ORDER PASSED IN I.A.NO.28/2022 DTD 11.02.2022 EXHIBIT R-1(f) A TRUE COPY OF REPORT OF THE OBSERVER APPOINTED BY THE PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF'S COURT, CHERTHALA IN O.S.NO.9/2021. EXHIBIT R-1(g) A TRUE COPY OF I.A.NO.32/2022 DTD.1602-2022 EXHIBIT R-1(h) A TRUE COPY OF I.A.NO.33/2022 FILED IN O.S.NO.9/2021 DTD.16.02.2022 EXHIBIT R-1(i) A TRUE COPY OF LIST OF PERSONS SUBMITTED BY THE ORIGINAL DEFENDANTS TO ASSIST COMMISSIONER WHILE AUDITING AMOUNTS DTD 07.01.2022 Exhibit R1(J) A TRUE COPY OF ORDER PASSED IN OPC.NO.363/2022 DATED 07/03/2022 STAYING ALL FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN O.S.NO.9/2021 STAYING ALL FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN OS.NO.9/2021 OF PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF'S COURT, CHERTHALA BUT ALLOWING CONDUCT OF FESTIVAL. Exhibit R1(k) A TRUE COPY OF ORDER PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF'S COURT, CHERTHALA IN I.A.NO.31/2022 IN O.S.NO.9/2021 DATED 03/03/2022. Exhibit R1(l) A TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT BEFORE THE SHO MUHAMMA SEEKING PROTECTION FROM POLICE FOR CONDUCTING THE FESTIVAL AS ORDERED BY THE COURT DATED 10/03/2022. Exhibit R1(m) A TRUE COPY OF "CHARTHU" GIVEN BY THE TEMPLE THANTHRI REGARDING THE FESTIVAL.