Sasidharan Pillai v State of Kerala & Ors (WP(C) Nos. 25975 of 2021 & 17791 of 2022)

# **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** # **`PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIJU ABRAHAM ``` ``` MONDAY, THE 24[TH] DAY OF JULY 2023 / 2ND SRAVANA, 1945 WP(C) NO. 25975 OF 2021 ``` ## **`PETITIONER:`** ``` SASIDHARAN PILLAI AGED 75 YEARS S/O. GOPINANTHAN PILLAI, RESIDING AT VRINDHAVANAM VEEDU, EDAMULAKKAL, AYOOR, KOLLAM DISTRICT (MANAGER/JOINT MANAGER, KOTTAPPURAM HIGH SCHOOL, PARAVOOR, KOLLAM DISTRICT TILL 6.8.2021) ``` ``` BY ADVS. V.AJAKUMAR SIDHARTH A.MENON ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS:`** - `1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, G.P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,PIN-695 001` - `2 THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, G.P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,PIN-695 001` - `3 THE UNDER SECRETARY, EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, G.P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,PIN-695 001` - `4 DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, DPI, JAGATHU, THYCAUD P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,PIN-695 014` - `5 ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR (GENERAL), OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, DPI, JAGATHU, THYCAUD P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,PIN-695 014` - `6 DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER, KOLLAM DISTRICT, KOLLAM CIVIL STATION, KOLLAM P.O., KOLLAM ,PIN -691 016` - `7 SRI.VENUKUMAR S/O. CHELLAPPAN PILLAI, RESIDING AT KRISHNA, B.R.N. THEKKEVILA, KOLLAM-691 016` - `BY ADVS. ADVOCATE GENERAL OFFICE KERALA R.SANTHOSH` - `A.CHANDRA BABU` WP(C) Nos. 25975 of 2021 & 17791 of 2022 : 2 : ``` C.R.VIJAYAKUMARAN PILLAI MUKESH KUMAR G. Muhamood T.T A.MOHAMMED SAVAD(K/543/2005) T.R.VISHNU(K/1280/2020) V.E.ABDUL GAFOOR(K/1278/2000) NAZEER HUZAIN.H(K/1166/2020) ``` ## **`OTHER PRESENT:`** ``` GP - BIMAL K.NATH ``` ``` THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24.07.2023, ALONG WITH WP(C).17791/2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` WP(C) Nos. 25975 of 2021 & 17791 of 2022 : 3 : ## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIJU ABRAHAM MONDAY, THE 24[TH] DAY OF JULY 2023 / 2ND SRAVANA, 1945 ``` ## **`WP(C) NO. 17791 OF 2022`** ## **`PETITIONER:`** ``` C.VENUKUMAR AGED 61 YEARS S/O.CHELLAPPAN PILLAI, "KRISHNA", BRN - 46, THEKKEVILA P.O., MUNDAKKAL VILLAGE, KOLLAM TALUK, KOLLAM DIST. - 691 016. BY ADVS. T.T.MUHAMOOD A.RENJIT V.E.ABDUL GAFOOR A.MOHAMMED SAVAD NAZEER HUZAIN.H T.R.VISHNU ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS:`** ``` 1THE STATE OF KERALA REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001. 2THE DIRECTOR OF GENERAL EDUCATION DIRECTORATE OF GENERAL EDUCATION, JAGATHY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 685 014. 3THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER OFFICE OF THE DEO, KOLLAM, PIN - 691 002. 4SASIDHARAN PILLAI AGED 72 YEARS, VRINDAVANAM VEEDU, IDAMULAKKAL, AYOOR, ANCHAL, KOLLAM - 691 533. BY ADVS. V.AJAKUMAR SIDHARTH A.MENON VASIL T.K. G.P., SRI.BIMAL K. NATH ``` ``` THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24.07.2023, ALONG WITH WP(C).25975/2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` WP(C) Nos. 25975 of 2021 & 17791 of 2022 : 4 : **VIJU ABRAHAM , J. =========================== WP(C) Nos. 25975 of 2021 & 17791 of 2022 ============================ Dated this the 24[th] day of July, 2023** ## **J U D G M E N T** ## **WP(C) No. 25975 of 2021** The above writ petition is filed challenging Exts P1, P2 and P6 and for other consequential orders. 2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of the writ petition is as follows:- Kottappuram High School was established in the year 1907 by the Kottavila family which is a Joint Hindu Family. The school and its property absolutely belongs to Kottavila family and the senior most male member (Karanavar or Kartha) of the Joint Hindu Family was acting as the Manager of the said school. Petitioner relying on Ext P4 Family Partition Deed No. 4808/1128 ME (1947) executed in between 49 members of Kottavila family contended that, a family trust was created for the administration of the said school and as per the same the Kottappuram High School and its properties were kept as common property under the Trust created by the said partition deed, and as per the terms of the above said deed, the school and its properties have to be managed and administered by the Trust Committee to be selected WP(C) Nos. 25975 of 2021 & 17791 of 2022 : 5 : from the members of Kottavila Family and senior most male member of the Kottavila family shall be appointed as the Manager. 3. During 1995 one of the member of another hindu family, i.e. Chamavila Family somehow or other established liaison with the then Manager of the Kottappuram School belonging to Kottavila Family and managed to obtain a joint managership of Kottappuram High School against the terms of the above Family Trust. This lead to the filing of O.S. No. 67/1998 before the Sub Court, Kollam by certain members of Kottavila Family. The suit was settled out of Court in between certain parties in a Lok Adalath conducted by the District Legal Service Authority, Kollam against the provisions of the Indian Trust Act and the Legal Service Authorities Act, 1987, and Ext P6 award/compromise dated 09.07.2005 was passed. Based on this settlement one member from the Chamavila Family was permitted to act as Joint Manager on the Kottappuram High School along with the members of Kottavila Family who was acting as Manager of the said school. 4. The petitioner became the Manager/Joint Manager of Kottappuram High School on 22.10.2013 and at that time, one Raghavan Pillai was also acting as the Joint Manager of the said school. Petitioner has pointed out the illegality in the Joint Managership of Mr. Raghavan Pillai. Thereupon the said Raghavan Pillai has requested the petitioner to allow him to continue as Joint WP(C) Nos. 25975 of 2021 & 17791 of 2022 : 6 : Manager for name sake till his life time and has further assured that thereafter no members of the Chamavila Family will raise a claim for Joint Managership. The said Raghavan Pillai died on 08.09.2019 and thereafter petitioner was discharging the functions of the Manager of the school. 5. The 7[th] respondent raised a claim for Joint Managership claiming that he is the selected member of the Chamavila Family and he has a right to be appointed as Joint Manager of Kottappuram High School, and he has filed an application before the 6[th] respondent, District Education Officer, Kollam with a request to appoint him as Joint Manager along with the petitioner who was functioning as Manager of the said school after the death of Raghavan Pillai. By Ext P3 order the request made by 7[th] respondent was rejected mainly for the reason that there are other senior members in the family than the 7[th] respondent and therefore the request of 7[th] respondent for appointment as Manager cannot be accepted. 6. An appeal was preferred by the 7[th] respondent before the Director of Public Instructions which was rejected as per Ext P2 order. But in the said order, the Director of Public Instruction entered a finding that since there were disputes between the two families regarding the Managership of the school, the said issue has to be settled by a competent Civil Court and till a final WP(C) Nos. 25975 of 2021 & 17791 of 2022 : 7 : decision is taken in the matter, the District Education Officer, Kollam was appointed as temporary Manager of the school. The said order, Ext P2 was challenged both by the 7[th] respondent as well as the petitioner before the Government and the Government as per Ext P1 order confirmed the order passed by the 2[nd] respondent. 7. Petitioner relying on Ext P4 partition deed submits that the school is in the absolute ownership of Kottavila Family and 7[th] respondent or any of his family members has absolutely no right over the same. Though a suit was filed as O.S. No. 67/1998 and the same was settled between few of the parties to the suit, the petitioner who was the 6[th] defendant in the suit has not signed the settlement and therefore the findings in the Adalath cannot bind the petitioner. 8. The petitioner further relies on the judgment in _**Mar Theophilus v. State of Kerala [1986 KHC 467]**_ and contended that not in every case the Statutory Authority is bound to relegate the parties to a settlement through a competent Civil Court, but authorities can also decide on the Managership of a school. The directions contained in Exts P2 and P3 relegating the parties to settle their dispute through a Civil Court is absolutely without any basis. WP(C) Nos. 25975 of 2021 & 17791 of 2022 : 8 : 9. A detailed counter affidavit has been filed by the 7[th] respondent. The learned Counsel appearing for the 7[th] respondent would content that the contention of the petitioner that Kottappuram High School at Paravur and its entire properties belongs to Kottavila Family and the said family alone has the right of management and administration of the school is baseless. The learned Counsel would further submit that the petitioner has suppressed material facts so as to raise a bogus claim over the property and management of the aforesaid school. Eventhough it is specifically averred in the writ petition that during 1995 one of the members of another Hindu Family i.e. Chamavila Family somehow or other established liaison with then Manager of the Kottappuram School belonging to Kottavila Family and managed to obtain a Joint Managership of the Kottappuram High School against the terms of the Family Trust, the petitioner himself has accepted the Manager/Joint Managership of Kottappuram High School on 22.10.2013, while one Mr. Raghavan Pillai who is from the Chamavila Family was acting as Joint Manager of the School and therefore the said contention is devoid of any merit. The petitioner himself was the Joint Manager along with another member of the Chamavila Family from 2013 to 2019. 1.37 acres of property comprised in Sy.No. 993 of Paravur Village was allotted to one Raman Keshavan of Chamavila Family as per Settlement No. WP(C) Nos. 25975 of 2021 & 17791 of 2022 : 9 : 364 of former Thiruvithankoor State as is evident from Ext R7(1). The said 1.37 acres of land is now situated in Block No.34 of Re.Sy. No. 223/10 of Paravur Village. The Karanavar of the Chamavila Family named Govindan Pillai and Karanavar named Narayanan Nair of Kottavila Family decided to jointly start a school in the name and style Kottappuram High School in the aforesaid 1.37 acres of land and another plot of 26.10 ares of property situated in the present Re.Sy. No. 238/22 of Paravur Village. Accordingly both families jointly constructed Kottappuram High School in the aforesaid property as is evident from Ext R7(2) tax receipt and the aforesaid two families started the above said school in their Joint Managership for the welfare and education of the people in Paravur area and suburb. The school is now a well reputed aided school imparting quality education since its date of establishment in 1907. It was also decided that the senior most male member from the female descendants of aforesaid two families have the right to manage the affairs of the aforesaid school. Pursuant to the same, the school was always under the Joint Managership of both the families, and that the administrative system of Manager and Manger-correspondent for alternative two years by the Karanavars of the aforesaid two family was continuing till 01.09.1960 and from the aforesaid date onwards it was jointly decided to limit the period of Manger and correspondent of the aforesaid school to one WP(C) Nos. 25975 of 2021 & 17791 of 2022 : 10 : year from the earlier tenure of two years. The aforesaid two families were unanimously following the aforesaid system without any dispute till 2019. Ext R7(3) is the internal administration deed specifying the rights as well as duties of Karanavars of Chamavila Family in the management of the aforesaid school which was registered as Doc No. 2066/1960. 10. While so, a suit was filed by two junior members of Kottavila Family and a perusal of the schedule of properties in R7(4) plaint would reveal that the property in which the school is situated is comprised in Sy. No. 933/1 which is the property in the ownership of Chamavila Family as is evident from Ext R7(1) settlement register. The said suit was subsequently compromised in the Lok Adalath and a compromise settlement was also executed. The petitioner is the 6[th] respondent in the aforesaid suit and subsequently he became the present Karanavar of the Kottavila Family and also held the management of the aforesaid school along with late Raghavan Pillai the Karanavar of Chamavila Family. The petitioner was intentionally and malefide attempting to ouster the Chamavila Family from the management and ownership of the aforesaid school. The petitioner also relies on Ext R7(6) which is the partition deed executed as 6627/118 ME (1942), which is prior to the execution of Ext P4 partition deed by the Kottavila Family. In Ext R7(6) the school properties are also WP(C) Nos. 25975 of 2021 & 17791 of 2022 : 11 : scheduled as common property in the deed. In Ext P4 partition deed the members of Kottavila Family did not mention about the janmam right or mode of derivation of janmam right of Kottavila family over the school. The fact being so, the claim of the petitioner on the strength of Ext P4 with respect to ownership and management of Kottappuram School as its sole Manager is not correct. Even in the written statement filed in O.S. No. 67/1998 there is no specific statement about the constitution of any family trust of Kottappuram Family members eventhough such constitution of family trust is mentioned in Ext P4 partition deed. 11. It is the case of the 7[th] respondent that after the death of Raghavan Pillai who was representing the Chamavila Family on 2019 all the members in the Chamavila Family unanimously selected the 7[th] respondent as their representative and thereupon submitted application for approval to the post of Manager of the said school as per the decision of the Chamavila Family members to the 6[th] respondent. The petitioner has absolutely no right to object to this legitimate claim of the Chamavila Family in their joint right over the management of Kottappuram High School. The 6[th] respondent declined the application of the 7[th] respondent only for the reason that he is not the senior most member of the Chamavila Family and at the same time he confirmed the joint right of Chamavila Family in the management of the aforesaid WP(C) Nos. 25975 of 2021 & 17791 of 2022 : 12 : school. The senior members of the Chamavila Family in writing expressed their inability to take part in the management affairs of the aforesaid school and hence nominated the 7[th] respondent to the post of the Manager as a representative of the Chamavila Family. The relinquishment letters of the senior members of the Chamavila Family was produced before the 5[th] respondent in the appeal preferred by the 7[th] respondent against Ext P3 order of the 6[th] respondent. But as per Exts P2 and P3, the departmental authorities and the Government directed that the dispute if any between the petitioner and the 7[th] respondent shall be resolved by way of a civil suit, till then the management was entrusted to the District Education Officer, Kollam. 12. The contentions of the petitioner that the Chamavila Family or the 7[th] respondent has absolutely no right over the property or was never in Joint Managership of the school till 1995 is also false. It is also submitted that the senior most male member of the aforesaid families are acting as Manager and Manager-Correspondence and vice-versa for the agreed period and their application for such purpose were recognised and accepted by the concerned authorities. Ext R7(8) is an order dated 27.04.1968 issued by the District Education Officer, Kollam appointing Raman Pillai of Chamavila Family as correspondent of Kottappuram School for the period from 01.04.1968 to 31.03.1969. WP(C) Nos. 25975 of 2021 & 17791 of 2022 : 13 : Exts R7(9) to Ext R7(17) are similar orders issued in this regard. Based on these documents, it is contented by the 7[th] respondent that the right of the aforesaid families in the Joint Management of the aforesaid school is well settled beyond any dispute and accepted by the authorities. The petitioner with malafide intention is trying to pull the two families into Civil litigation for adjudicating the rights which are already settled. ## **WP(C) No. 17791 of 2022** 13. The above writ petition is filed by the 7[th] respondent in WP(C) No. 25975/2021. The petitioner herein also challenges few of the orders challenged in WP(C) No. 25975/2021. 14. The petitioner in this writ petition would submit that the application submitted before the 3[rd] respondent for appointing him as one of the Joint Managers of the school has been rejected by Ext P6. The reasons stated in Ext P6 is that the petitioner in this writ petition is not the senior most member of the Chamavila family and as per the settlement made in O.S. No. 67 of 1998, it is the senior member of both the families who is to act as Joint Managers. Petitioner would content that the senior most member of the Chamavila family who was functioning as Joint Manager expired on 08.09.2019. Immediate three senior members of Chamavila family were not willing and able to act as Manager of the aforesaid school as the representative of the Chamavila family. WP(C) Nos. 25975 of 2021 & 17791 of 2022 : 14 : Thereupon the family members of Chamavila family convened a general body meeting as per Ext P2 resolution dated 15.09.2019, elected the petitioner and appointed him as the representative of the Chamavila family to the post of Manager of the school. Exts P3 to P5 are the consent letters issued by the elder family members of the Chamavila family. On the basis of Exts P1 to P5, petitioner would submit that there is absolutely no reason for rejecting his claim as per Ext P6. 15. Petitioner further submits that in the appeal as well as in revision the Education Authority has taken a stand that till the dispute between the two families regarding the managership is resolved, the District Education Officer, Kollam shall act as the temporary Manager of the school. Petitioner submits that the said stand taken by the 4[th] respondent herein who is the petitioner in WP(C) No. 25975 of 2021 is against the documents produced by him along with the counter affidavit in the other case, which clearly reveals the right of management both for the Chamavila family as well as Kottavila family in the matter of management of the school. He further submits that since consent letters have been given as per Exts P1 to P5, the reason stated in Ext P6 that petitioner is not the senior most member of the family and therefore his appointment cannot be approved is absolutely without any basis. WP(C) Nos. 25975 of 2021 & 17791 of 2022 : 15 : 16. Heard the respective Counsels appearing on both sides and the learned Government Pleader. 17. It is the specific contention of the 7[th] respondent in WP(C) No.25975/2021 that the school was under the Joint Managership of both the families till 2019, until the nominee of the Chamavila family one Raghavan Pillai died in 2019. It is an admitted fact that the said Raghavan Pillai was in Joint Managership of the school along with the petitioner in WP(C) No. 25975/2021. Going by the documents produced in this case along with the counter affidavit filed by the 7[th] respondent who is the petitioner in WP(C) No. 17791/2022, especially document Nos. R7(1) and R7(2) as well as R7(8) to R7(17) it is without any dispute that the school was under the Joint Managership of both the families. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner in WP(C) No. 25975/2021 that the school was in the absolute ownership of Kottavila family and it is only in 1995 that some member of Chamavila family was also made Joint Manager in the school cannot be accepted. Ext P6 order produced in WP(C) No. 17791/2022 which is the original order whereby the request of the petitioner therein who is the 7[th] respondent in WP(C) No. 25975/2021 for joint managership was rejected for the reason that the petitioner is not the senior most member of the Chamavila family requires reconsideration at the hands of the respondents, WP(C) Nos. 25975 of 2021 & 17791 of 2022 : 16 : especially in view of Exts P1 to P5 produced in WP(C) No. 17791/2022. It is in the said proceedings that the petitioner in WP(C) No. 25975/2021 raised an objection that the members of Chamavila family has no right over the school and the school is in the absolute ownership of Kottavila family to which the petitioner in WP(C) No. 25975/2021 belongs. It is on the basis of said objection that the Appellate Authority and Revisional Authority took a stand that till the disputes are resolved in civil proceedings the District Education Officer, Kollam shall act as the Manager of the school. 18. The petitioner in WP(C) No. 25975/2021 relies on the judgment of this Court in _**Mar Theophilus’ case**_ supra to content for the position that it is not in all cases that the Education Authority shall relegate the parties to resolve the disputes in civil proceedings and held that if it is possible for the Education Authority to decide on the questions raised atleast for the limited purpose of the Act and the Rules the authorities should attempt to do so. The petitioner relies on paragraph 14 of the said judgment in the relevant portion of which reads as follows: _“The case law thus suggests that abdiction of jurisdiction (under R.5A) by the statutory authorities in every case, on the ground that the dispute is a fit one for the civil court, cannot be justified; it also suggests that there would be cases where the disputes involve complicated questions of fact and law beyond their reach. In each case arising under R.5A. Therefore, the D.P.I, (or Government) will have to decide whether a case of change of ownership is involved, so as to justify grant of_ WP(C) Nos. 25975 of 2021 & 17791 of 2022 : 17 : _approval for a consequent change of management. If possible they should decide the question in all cases, at least for the limited purposes of the Act and Rules. But where the problems are far too complex, requiring the taking of evidence and the determination of difficult legal questions, they can certainly hold their hand and await appropriate decisions from civil courts, if they are satisfied that there would be no vacuum in the management of the school in the meanwhile. After all, what is important is that there should be some one to function as Manager under the control of the Educational authorities; and that that some one should be one chosen by a person who is prima facie at least, the owner of the institution, The question of real ownership and a final determination of the same, in so far as they amount to recognition of civil rights are obviously out of bounds for the D.P.I, and the Government.”_ A perusal of the said judgment itself will show that if the problems are far too complex requiring to take evidence and determination of difficult legal question, then the same can certainly be only according to the appropriate decision of the Civil Court. The issues now raised by petitioner in WP(C) No. 25975/2021 is in fact the denial of the right of 7[th] respondent or any member of the Chamavila family in having any right to have Joint Managership of the school in question. After hearing both sides, I am of the opinion that the issue as to whether the 7[th] respondent in WP(C) No. 25975/2021 who is the petitioner in WP(C) No. 17791/2022 could be appointed as Joint Manager should be reconsidered by the Educational Authority concerned, especially for the reason that the claim of the said respondent was rejected solely for the reason that he is not the WP(C) Nos. 25975 of 2021 & 17791 of 2022 : 18 : elder member of the family. Therefore, the above writ petitions are disposed of as follows. i) Exts P6, P7 and P10 produced in WP(C) No. 17791/2022 are set aside and the matter is remitted to the 1[st] respondent Government for a reconsideration. ii) Government while reconsidering the matter on the application submitted by the petitioner in WP(C) No. 17791/2022 filed on 15.09.2019 to approve his appointment as Joint Manager of Kottappuram High School, Paravur, Kollam shall take into consideration Exts P1 to P5 or any other documents filed by the petitioner in WP(C) No. 17791/2022 in support of his contentions. While taking a decision as directed above the Government shall also hear the 4[th] respondent in WP(C) No. 17791/2022 who is the petitioner in WP(C) No. 25975/2021 and shall consider whether the dispute regarding the managership could be resolved and a final adjudication could be made without recourse to any civil proceedings and shall take a decision in the matter in accordance with law. It is made clear that the 1[st] respondent has right to relegate the matter to the competent Civil Court for adjudication, if the situation so warrants. Till a decision is taken as directed above the District Education Officer, Kollam will act as the Manager of the school. The petitioners in both the writ petitions will be free to submit their notes of arguments along with WP(C) Nos. 25975 of 2021 & 17791 of 2022 : 19 : supporting documents and a decision shall be taken by the 1[st] respondent after adverting to the various contentions and documents produced in support of the rival claims after affording an opportunity of being heard to them, within an outer limit of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. **Sd/VIJU ABRAHAM JUDGE** sbk/- WP(C) Nos. 25975 of 2021 & 17791 of 2022 : 20 : ## **`APPENDIX OF WP(C) 17791/2022`** - `PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF DEATH CERTIFICATE DATED 29/10/2019 ISSUED BY THE REGISTRAR OF BIRTHS AND DEATHS, ADICHANALLOOR GRAMA PANCHAYAT.` - `Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF RESOLUTION DATED 15/09/2019 PASSED BY THE CHAMAVILA KUDUMBA TRUST.` - `Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF CONSENT LETTER DATED 09/02/2020 EXECUTED BY SRI.RAMACHANDRA KURUP, THE SENIOR MOST MEMBER OF CHAMAVILA FAMILY.` - `Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF CONSENT LETTER EXECUTED BY SRI.MOHANDAS, ANOTHER SENIOR MEMBER OF CHAMAVILA FAMILY.` - `Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF CONSENT LETTER DATED 09/02/2020 EXECUTED BY SRI.C.RADHAKRISHNA PILLAI.` - `Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF ORDER` - `NO.B/1/5682/2018/K.DIS. DATED 30/01/2020 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.` - `Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF ORDER` - `NO.ET1/12399/2019/DPI/K.DIS. DATED 11/01/2021 ISSUED B THE 2ND RESPONDENT.` - `Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF APPEAL DATED 18/01/2021 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.` - `Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF GOVERNMENT LETTER NO.GEDN/F1/16/2021-G.EDN DATED 16/02/2021.` - `Exhibit P10 TRUE COPY OF GO(RT) NO.3571/2021/G.EDN. DATED 06/08/2021.` - `Exhibit P11 TRUE COPY OF LOK - ADALATH AGREEMENT DATED 09/07/2005 IN OS NO.67/1998 ON THE FILE OF THE HON'BLE SUB COURT, KOLLAM.` WP(C) Nos. 25975 of 2021 & 17791 of 2022 : 21 : ## **`APPENDIX OF WP(C) 25975/2021`** ``` PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 ``` - `TRUE COPY OF E-MAIL COPY OF THE ORDER NO.3571/2021 DATED 6.8.2021` - `Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF E-MAIL COPY OF THE ORDER NO. ETI/12399/2019/DPI/K.DIS DATED 11.1.2021` - `Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.B1/5682/2019/K.DIS DATED 30.1.2020` - `Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE PARTITION DEED NO.4808 OF 1123 ME` - `Exhibit P4A TRUE COPY TYPES READABLE COPY OF EXHIBIT P4` - `Exhibit P4B THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE EXHIBIT P4 PARTITION DEED WHICH DEALS WITH THE CREATION OF THE TRUST AND THE MANAGEMENT AND ADMINISTRATION OF THE KOTTAPPURAM HIGH SCHOOL` - `Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN OS NO.67/1998 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SUB COURT, KOLLAM` - `Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE AWARD/COMPROMISE DATED 9.7.2005 IN OS NO.67/1998 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SUB COURT, KOLLAM` - `Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE STAY ORDER NO.GEDNF1/16/2021 G-EDN DATED 16.2.2021` - `Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 16.8.2021 FILED BEFORE THE 6TH RESPONDENT UNDER RTI ACT` - `Exhibit P8A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 2.9.2021 FURNISHED BY THE STATE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER OF DEO, OFFICE, KOLLAM TO EXHIBIT P8 APPLICATION` - `Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF THE RTI APPLICATION DATED 16.8.2021 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT UNDER RTI ACT` - `Exhibit P9A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 23.9.2021 FURNISHED BY THE STATE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER TO EXHIBIT P9 APPLICATION` - `Exhibit P10 TRUE COPY OF THE OTTI AND KUZHIKKANAM DEED NO 1292 OF 1080 ME OF S.R.O, CHATHANNOOR` - `Exhibit P11 TRUE TYPED COPY OF THE DEED NO 1292 OF 1080 ME` - `Exhibit P12 TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTERED AGREEMENT DATED 21ST THULAM 1081 ME` - `Exhibit P13 TRUE TYPED COPY OF THE AGREEMENT` WP(C) Nos. 25975 of 2021 & 17791 of 2022 : 22 : |`Exhibit P14`|`TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY`| |---|---| ||`PETITIONER BEFORE THE REVENUE OFFICIALS`| |`RESPONDENT EXHIBITS`|| |`Exhibit R7(1)`|`THE TRUE COPY OF THE SETTLEMENT NUMBER`| ||`364 OF THE FORMER THIRUVITHAMCODE STATE`| ||`ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE CENTRAL`| ||`SURVEY OFFICE`| |`Exhibit R7(2)`|`THE TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT NUMBER`| ||`1115207 DATED 30.03.2004 OF PARAVOOR`| ||`VILLAGE`| |`Exhibit R7(3)`|`THE TRUE COPY OF ADMINISTRATION DEED`| ||`NUMBER 2066/1960 OF CHATHANNOOR SRO`| ||`EXECUTED BY THE CHAMAVILA FAMILY MEMBERS`| |`Exhibit R7(4)`|`THE TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S.`| ||`NO.67/1998 ON THE FILES OF THE HON’BLE`| ||`SUB COURT KOLLAM`| |`Exhibit R7(5)`|`THE TRUE COPY OF THE LOK ADALATH`| ||`COMPROMISE AGREEMENT DATED 09.07.2005 IN`| ||`O.S. NO.67/1998 ON THE FILES OF THE`| ||`HON’BLE SUB COURT KOLLAM`| |`Exhibit R7(6)`|`THE TRUE COPY OF THE PARTITION DEED`| ||`NO.6672/1118(M.E) EXECUTED BY THE MEMBERS`| ||`OF CHAMAVILA FAMILY`| |`Exhibit R7(7)`|`THE TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT`| ||`FILED BY SREEDHARAN NAIR OF KOTTAVILA`| ||`FAMILY IN O.S. NO.67/1998 ON THE FILES OF`| ||`THE HON’BLE SUB COURT KOLLAM`| |`Exhibit R7(8)`|`THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED`| ||`27.04.1968 ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT`| ||`EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, KOLLAM`| |`Exhibit R7(9)`|`THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED`| ||`27.04.1968 ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT`| ||`EDUCATIONAL OFFICER KOLLAM FOR THE PERIOD`| ||`15.09.1976 TO 31.03.1977`| |`Exhibit R7(10)`|`THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR THE`| ||`APPOINTMENT AND CHANGE OF MANAGER`| ||`APPROVED BY THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL`| ||`OFFICER KOLLAM FOR THE PERIOD 01.04.1978`| ||`TO 31.03.1979`| |`Exhibit R7(11)`|`THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR THE`| ||`APPOINTMENT AND CHANGE OF CORRESPONDENT`| ||`APPROVED BY THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL`| ||`OFFICER KOLLAM FOR THE YEAR 01.04.1978 TO`| ||`31.03.1979`| |`Exhibit R7(12)`|`THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR THE`| ||`APPOINTMENT AND CHANGE OF MANAGEMENT`| ||`APPROVED BY THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL`| ||`OFFICER, KOLLAM FOR THE YEAR 12.06.1993`| WP(C) Nos. 25975 of 2021 & 17791 of 2022 : 23 : ``` TO 31.03.1994 Exhibit R7(13)THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.K.DIS/81515/93/ETL/DATED 12.10.1993 ISSUED BY THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM Exhibit R7(14)THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.B1/4514/97/DATED 05.05.1997 FOR THE PERIOD 01.04.1997 TO 31.03.1998 BY THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER KOLLAM Exhibit R7(15)THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. B1/3727/99 DATED 02.06.1999 FOR THE PERIOD 01.04.1999 TO 31.03.2000 BY THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER KOLLAM Exhibit R7(16)THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.B1/1282/09/DATED 30.05.2009 APPROVING THE CHANGE OF MANAGEMENT BY THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER KOLLAM Exhibit R7(17)THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.B1/6873/2013/DATED 22.10.2013 APPROVING THE CHANGE OF MANAGEMENT BY THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER KOLLAM Exhibit R7 (18)TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL SUB JUDGE, KOLLAM IN IA NO. 1705/2005 IN OS NO. 67/1998 Exhibit R7(19)TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. B1-3380(90) L. DIS DATED 30-03-1990 PASSED BY THE DEO, KOLLAM IN THE APPLICATION FOR CHANGE OF CORRESPONDENCE ```