O. P. (C) Nos. 3251 of 2019; O. P. (C) Nos. 3252 of 2019

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN** **WEDNESDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF JANUARY 2020 / 2ND MAGHA, 1941** ## **OP(C).No.3251 OF 2019** **AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN CMA 13/2019 DATED 11-12-2019 OF SUB COURT, KARUNAGAPPALLY** **AGAINST THE ORDER IN IA 903/2019 IN OS 184/2019 DATED 05-07-2019 OF MUNSIFF COURT, KARUNAGAPPALLY** **-----** ## **PETITIONER/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT:** **ADVOCATE K.GOPINATHAN, AGED 87 YEARS, S/O. KOCHUKRISHNAN, SREERANGOM, PUTHUPPALLY SOUTH, PUTHUPPALLY P.O., ALAPPUZHA - 690527.** **BY ADVS. SRI.P.B.SAHASRANAMAN SRI.T.S.HARIKUMAR** ## **RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS:** - **1 S.SREEDHARAN PILLAI, AGED 71 YEARS, MEZHUVELIL, MADATHILKARAZHMA P.O., KOTTAMPALLY MURI, OACHIRA VILLAGE, KARUNAGAPPILLY TALUK, KOLLAM-690526.** - **2 R.D. PADMAKUMAR, AGED 54 YEARS, GOWRI NIVAS, PAYIKUZHI MURI, OACHIRA P.O., KARUNAGAPPALLY-690526.** - **3 M.R VIMAL DANI, AGED 53 YEARS, MAKKADATHU VEETTIL, SRAYIKKADU, AZHEEKAL P.O., OACHIRA, KARUNAGAPPALLY-690526.** - **4 JAYAPRAKASH, AGED 65 YEARS, S/O. SREEDHARAN, KALARIKKAL VEETTIL, KADATHOOR MURI, KULASEKHARAPURAM P.O., KARUNAGAPPALLY-690544.** - **5 S. SASIDHARAN PILLAI, AGED 64 YEARS, KANNADIYIL, MEMANA MURI, OACHIRA P.O., KARUNAGAPPALLY-690526.** **OP(C).No.3251 OF 2019 -2-** - **6 K. JAYAMOHANAN, AGED 48 YEARS, KOTTIRETHU VEETTIL, PUTHENCHANTHA P.O., VALLIKUNNAM VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA-690501.** - **7 K. JYOTHIKUMAR, AGED 54 YEARS, BRAHMANANDAPURAM, SOUTH KOCHUMURI, OACHIRA P.O., KARUNAGAPPALLY-690526.** **R4 BY ADV. SRI.K.S.HARIHARAPUTHRAN R4 BY ADV. SMT.BHANU THILAK** **THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21.01.2020, ALONG WITH OP(C).3252/2019, THE COURT ON 22.01.2020, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN** **WEDNESDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF JANUARY 2020 / 2ND MAGHA, 1941** ## **OP(C).No.3252 OF 2019** **AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN CMA 14/2019 OF SUB COURT, KARUNAGAPPALLY DATED 11.12.2019** **AGAINST THE ORDER IN IA NO.904/2019 IN OS 184/2019 OF MUNSIFF COURT, KARUNAGAPPALLY DATED 05.07.2019** **-----** ## **PETITIONERS/PETITIONERS/PETITIONERS:** **1 OACHIRA PARABRAHMA KSHETRAM, OACHIRA P.O., PIN-690526.** **2 ADVOCATE K.GOPINATHAN, AGED 87 YEARS S/O. KOCHUKRISHNAN, SREERANGOM, PUTHUPPALLY SOUTH, PUTHUPPALLY P.O., ALAPPUZHA - 690527.** **BY ADVS. SRI.P.B.SAHASRANAMAN SRI.T.S.HARIKUMAR** ## **RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:** **1 S.SREEDHARAN PILLAI, AGED 71 YEARS** **MEZHUVELIL, MADATHILKARAZHMA P.O., KOTTAMPALLY MURI, OACHIRA VILLAGE, KARUNAGAPPILLY TALUK, KOLLAM-690526.** **2 R.D. PADMAKUMAR, AGED 54 YEARS, GOWRI NIVAS, PAYIKUZHI MURI, OACHIRA P.O., KARUNAGAPPALLY-690526.** **3 M.R VIMAL DANI, AGED 53 YEARS, MAKKADATHU VEETTIL, SRAYIKKADU, AZHEEKAL P.O., OACHIRA, KARUNAGAPPALLY-690526.** **4 JAYAPRAKASH, AGED 65 YEARS, S/O. SREEDHARAN, KALARIKKAL VEETTIL, KADATHOOR MURI, KULASEKHARAPURAM P.O., KARUNAGAPPALLY-690544.** **OP(C).No.3252 OF 2019 -2-** - **5 S. SASIDHARAN PILLAI, AGED 64 YEARS, KANNADIYIL, MEMANA MURI, OACHIRA P.O., KARUNAGAPPALLY-690526.** - **6 K. JAYAMOHANAN,** **AGED 48 YEARS, KOTTIRETHU VEETTIL, PUTHENCHANTHA P.O., VALLIKUNNAM VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA-690501.** - **7 K. JYOTHIKUMAR,** - **AGED 54 YEARS, BRAHMANANDAPURAM, SOUTH KOCHUMURI, OACHIRA P.O., KARUNAGAPPALLY-690526.** - **8 GURUPRASAD, AGED 35 YEARS, S/O. JAYAPRAKASH, KALARIKKAL VEETTIL, KADATHOOR MURI, KULASEKHARAPURAM P.O., KARUNAGAPPALLY-690544.** - **9 DILEEP, AGED 42 YEARS, S/O. VASUDEVAN, PUTHENPURAYIL, KARUNAGAPPALLY MURI, KULASEKHARAPURAM VILLAGE, KARUNAGAPPALLY-690544.** **R4 BY ADV. SRI.K.S.HARIHARAPUTHRAN R4 BY ADV. SMT.BHANU THILAK R8-9 BY ADV. SMT.K.G.BINDU** **THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21.01.2020, ALONG WITH OP(C).3251/2019, THE COURT ON 22.01.2020, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** ## **SATHISH NINAN, J.** **= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = O. P. (C) Nos.3251 & 3252 of 2019 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 22[nd] day of January, 2020** ## **JUDGMENT** In these original petitions, the challenge relate to the interlocutory proceedings for injunction. The dispute involved pertains to the right of administration of a temple. The petitioners in these original petitions are the plaintiffs in the suit. The respondents are the defendants. 2. The bye-laws for the administration of the temple provide for three committees:- (1) The General Administration Committee(പപപൊതുഭരണ സമമിതമി); (2) The Working Committee(പ്രവർത്തക സമമിതമി); and (3) The Executive Committee (കപൊരര്യനമിർവ്വഹണ സമമിതമി). The working Committee is elected from the General Administration Committee and the Executive Committee is elected from the Working Committee. 3. It is not in dispute that in the election O. P. (C) Nos.3251 & 3252 of 2019 :- 2 :- held on 30.04.2017, the second plaintiff and defendants 1 to 7 were elected to the executive committee, the second plaintiff being the secretary. The term of office is five years. 4. According to the plaintiffs, in the meeting of the General Administration Committee held on 06.04.2019, defendants 1 to 7 were expelled. The suit is filed for prohibitory injunction alleging that they are interfering with the administration in spite of they being removed from office. 5. In the suit, the plaintiffs filed an interlocutory application as IA 904/2019 seeking an interim order of injunction to restrain the defendants from interfering with the administration. According to the defendants, in the meeting of the General Administration Committee held on 06.04.2019, there has been no such item in the agenda regarding their expulsion, nor any decision to expel them and that, the documents produced with regard to expulsion are fabricated documents. They further allege that in the meeting O. P. (C) Nos.3251 & 3252 of 2019 :- 3 :- of the Executive Committee held on 08.04.2019, the second plaintiff was expelled from office and the fourth defendant was appointed as the secretary. The defendants filed an application as IA 903/2019 seeking an interim order of injunction against the second plaintiff from interfering with the administration. 6. The trial court considered these applications together and dismissed IA 904/2019 filed by the plaintiffs and allowed IA 903/2019 filed by the defendants. The orders were challenged by the plaintiffs, in CMA 13/2019 and CMA 14/2019, which ended in dismissal. The original petitions arise therefrom. 7. Heard learned Senior Counsel Sri.N.N.Sugunapalan, and learned counsel Sri.T.S. Harikumar on behalf of the petitioners-plaintiffs and Sri.K.S.Hariharputhran and Smt.C.G.Bindu on behalf of the respondents-defendants. 8. The plaintiffs claim that defendants 1 to 7 were removed from the office in the meeting of the O. P. (C) Nos.3251 & 3252 of 2019 :- 4 :- General Administration Committee held on 06.04.2019 and therefore, they have no right to interfere with the administration. The defendants deny the allegation and contend that the second plaintiff was removed from the office in the meeting of the Executive Committee held on 08.04.2019 and hence the second plaintiff is not entitled to interfere with the administration. Undisputedly defendants 1 to 7 were parties to the meeting and decision of the Executive Committee held on 08.04.2019. If their removal from office by the General Administration Committee on 06.04.2019 is held to be valid, then the meeting and decision of the Executive Committee held on 08.04.2019 tumble on that ground alone. Therefore, the main aspect to be looked into is regarding the prima facie validity of the decision of the General Administration Committee held on 06.04.2019. 9. The defendants contend that the decision of the General Administration Committee held on 06.04.2019 is not valid mainly on two grounds:-(1) O. P. (C) Nos.3251 & 3252 of 2019 :- 5 :- Removal of defendants 1 to 7 from the office was not included in the agenda and (2) No such item was taken up for consideration and the minutes relied on by the second plaintiff is fabricated. 10. Referring to the agenda for the meeting held on 06.04.2019, the courts below found that removal of defendants 1 to 7 from office was not included as an item. It was further held that, if at all such an item was taken up for discussion, that was without notice to defendants 1 to 7 and giving them any opportunity to give their explanations. Noticeably, though the General Administration Committee consists of 272 members, in the meeting held on 06.04.2019 only 128 members were present. It has to be borne in mind that the members of the Committee did not have notice regarding the proposed removal of defendants 1 to 7 from office. Being a matter which relates to the administration of the temple and the right to hold office, as noticed by the courts below it is necessary that all the members of the Committee O. P. (C) Nos.3251 & 3252 of 2019 :- 6 :- should be put on notice regarding such an item. The finding of the courts below that the decision held on 06.04.2019 by the General Administration Committee suffers from the vice of non-inclusion in the agenda and violation of principles of natural justice, prima facie appeals. 11. Relying on the judgments of the Apex Court and of this Court reported in Balvant N. Viswamitra v. Yadav Sadashiv Mule [2004 (8) SCC 706] , State of Rajasthan v. A. N. Mathur [2014 (13) SCC 531] , Anita International v. Tungabadra Sugar Works Mazdoor Sangh [(2016) 9 SCC 44] , State of Kerala v. Official Liquidator [1987 (1) KLT 801] , and Cochin College v. Ajith Kumar K. [ 2014 (4) ILR 532] , the learned Senior Counsel contends that even assuming that the decision taken on 06.04.2019 by the General Administration Committee violates the principles of justice, unless and until the same is challenged and got set aside or a declaration is obtained to the effect that the decision is bad for violation of principles of natural justice, the O. P. (C) Nos.3251 & 3252 of 2019 :- 7 :- same holds good. Since the same has not been challenged by defendants 1 to 7, they cannot claim entitlement to be in office, submits the learned counsel. The present proceedings arise from the interlocutory applications for injunction. It is to be noticed that the defendants are yet to file their written statements in the suit and that the suit is still in the preliminary stage. The right of the defendants, if necessary to challenge the decision of the General Administration Committee held on 06.04.2019, is still live. In the interlocutory proceedings they do challenge the decision. Therefore the mere fact that the decision is not sought to be set aside in the main proceedings as of now, will not tilt the balance at this stage. 12. Prima facie, the courts below have found the decision dated 06.04.2019 relied on by the plaintiffs to be in violation of the principles of natural justice. It is not under challenge that the proposal to remove defendants 1 to 7 from office O. P. (C) Nos.3251 & 3252 of 2019 :- 8 :- did not form an item in the agenda. The finding of the courts below are based on materials. 13. The alleged decision of the General Administration Committee held on 06.04.2019 proposing to expel defendants 1 to 7 from office having been prima facie found to be unacceptable, the decision taken by the Executive Committee on 08.04.2019 cannot be found to be bad on account of the participation of defendants 1 to 7 in the meeting. Though learned counsel Sri.Harikumar would submit that the second plaintiff was not served with notice of the meeting of the Executive Committee held on 08.04.2019 and hence the decision taken in the said meeting suffers from the same vice alleged against the decision of the General Administration Committee on 06.04.2019, no such case has been set up so far. 14. Both the courts below have considered the rival claims, the prima facie rights, equities, balance of convenience and exercised their discretion and has passed the orders impugned. I am O. P. (C) Nos.3251 & 3252 of 2019 :- 9 :- unable to find any perversity with the same. There is no warrant to interfere with the orders. 15. The original petitions fail and are accordingly dismissed. However, I make it clear that the disposal of the interlocutory proceedings shall not affect the trial and final disposal of the suit and that the same shall be disposed of untramelled and uninfluenced by any of the findings and observations in this interlocutory proceedings. kns/- Sd/- **SATHISH NINAN JUDGE** P.S. to Judge //True Copy// ## **APPENDIX OF OP(C) 3251/2019** ## **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1 TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE PLAINT IN OS NO.184/2019 OF THE MUNSIFF COURT KARUNAGAPPALLY WHICH WAS FILED BEFORE THE VACATION COURT, KOLLAM. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE IA NO.649/2019 IN EXHIBIT P1 PLAINT FILED BEFORE THE VACATION COURT, KOLLAM. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE ORDER IN I.A. NO.649/2019 OF THE VACATION COURT, KOLLAM DATED 20/04/2019. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE OBJECTIONS FILED BY RESPONDENTS 1 TO 4 IN I.A. NO.649/2019. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF IN IA NO. 764/2019 OF THE VACATION COURT, KOLLAM. EXHIBIT P6 TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE OBJECTIONS FILED BY PETITIONER HEREIN IN IA NO.764/2019. EXHIBIT P7 TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE COMMON ORDER IN IA NO.649/2019 AND IN IA NO.764/2019 OF THE VACATION COURT, KOLLAM DATED 10/05/2019. EXHIBIT P8 TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE COMMON ORDER IN IA NO.903/2019 AND IA NO.904/2019 IN OS NO. 184/2019 OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, KARUNAGAPPALLY, DATED 05/07/2019. EXHIBIT P9 TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE CMA NO.13/2019 FILED BEFORE THE SUB COURT, KARUNAGAPPALLY. EXHIBIT P10 TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE IA NO.350/2019 IN CMA NO.13/2019 FILED BEFORE THE SUB COURT, KARUNAGAPPALLY. EXHIBIT P11 TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS IN IA NO.350/2019 IN CMA NO.13/2019 FILED BEFORE THE SUB COURT, KARUNAGAPPALLY.** APPNENDIX -2- |**EXHIBIT P12**|**TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE ORDER IN IA**| |---|---| ||**NO.350/2019 IN CMA NO.13/2019 OF THE SUB**| ||**COURT, KARUNAGAPPALLY, DATED 19/09/2019.**| |**EXHIBIT P13**|**TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE COMMON JUDGMENT**| ||**IN OPC NO.2959/2019 AND OPC NO.2960/2019 OF**| ||**THIS HON'BLE COURT DATED 29/11/2019.**| |**EXHIBIT P14**|**TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE CARBON COPY OF**| ||**THE COMMON JUDGMENT IN CMA NO.13/2019 AND**| ||**CMA NO. 14/2019 OF THE SUB COURT,**| ||**KARUNAGAPPALLY, DATED 11/12/2019.**| ----------- APPNENDIX -3- ## **APPENDIX OF OP(C) 3252/2019** ## **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1 TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE PLAINT IN OS NO.184/2019 OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, KARUNAGAPPALLY WHICH WAS FILED BEFORE THE VACATION COURT, KOLLAM. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE IA NO.649/2019 IN EXHIBIT P1 PLAINT FILED BEFORE THE VACATION COURT, KOLLAM. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE ORDER IN IA NO.649/2019 OF THE VACATION COURT, KOLLAM DATED 20/04/2019. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE OBJECTIONS FILED BY RESPONDENTS 1 TO 4 IN IA NO.649/2019. EXHIBIT P5 THE TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF IA NO.764/2019 OF THE VACATION COURT, KOLLAM. EXHIBIT P6 TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE OBJECTIONS FILED BY PETITIONERS HEREIN IA NO.764/2019. EXHIBIT P7 TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE COMMON ORDER IN IA NO.649/2019 AND IN IA NO.764/2019 OF THE VACATION COURT, KOLLAM, DATED 10/05/2019. EXHIBIT P8 TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE COMMON ORDER IN IA NO.903/2019 AND IN IA NO.904/2019 IN OS NO. 184/2019 OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, KARUNAGAPPALLY, DATED 05/07/2019. EXHIBIT P9 TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE CMA NO.14/2019 FILED BEFORE THE SUB COURT, KARUNAGAPPALLY. EXHIBIT P10 TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE IA NO.352/2019 IN CMA NO.14/2019 FILED BEFORE THE SUB COURT, KARUNAGAPPALLY. EXHIBIT P11 TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS IN IA NO.352/2019 IN CMA NO.14/2019 FILED BEFORE THE SUB COURT, KARUNAGAPPALLY.** APPNENDIX |APPNENDIX|| |---|---| ||-4-| |**EXHIBIT P12**|**TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE ORDER IN IA**| ||**NO.352/2019 IN CMA NO.14/2019 OF THE SUB**| ||**COURT, KARUNGAPPALLY, DATED 19/09/2019.**| |**EXHIBIT P13**|**TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE COMMON JUDGMENT IN**| ||**OPC NO.2959/2019 AND OPC NO.2960/2019 OF THIS**| ||**HON'BLE COURT, DATED 29/11/2019.**| |**EXHIBIT P14**|**TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE CARBON COPY OF THE**| ||**COMMON JUDGMENT IN C.M.A. NO.13/2019 AND**| ||**C.M.A. NO.14/2019 OF THE SUB COURT,**| ||**KARUNAGAPPALLY DATED 11/12/2019.**| ----------- MIN