This High Court of Kerala revision petition concerns whether a lease Ext.A1 dated 28.07.1951 in favour of Narayana under the Kerala Land Reforms Act (Section 72B) conferred cultivating-tenant status. The matter traces a chequered history: the Land Tribunal Kasaragod allowed an OA for enforcement of tenancy; the Appellate Authority Kannur reversed; this Court (in CRP 2354/1980) remitted the case for fresh consideration and limited the scope to whether the tenant was a cultivating tenant as on 01.01.1964. The petitioners (landlords) contended Ext.A1 describes a lease of a building with land appurtenant, not agricultural land, and thus the tenant cannot acquire rights under Section 72B. They relied on the Supreme Court decision in K. Bhagirathi G. Shenoy v. K.P. Ballakuraya (AIR 1999 SC 2143), which discusses leases of land building with appurtenant land, emphasizing that a building lease cannot automatically convert into an agricultural lease. The respondents urged adherence to remand observations and the earlier findings that the tenant was cultivating. The High Court carefully re-examined Ext.A1, noting that the remand did not preclude interpreting Ext.A1 in light of Bhagirathi and other authorities; it clarified that the terms of Ext.A1 restrict improvements and cultivation rights, implying that the tenant did not possess a cultivating-tenant status as on 01.01.1964. Consequently, the CRP was allowed, AA judgments set aside, OA 5/71 dismissed, and interlocutory petitions closed, as the lease is a building lease with appurtenant land rather than agricultural land.
This Kerala High Court criminal appeal arises from a conviction under Abkari Act Section 8(2) against Chandran for possessing 4.5 litres of arrack recovered at New Uchakkada, Thirupuram. The trial court, after a standard trial, held him guilty and sentenced him to one year’s imprisonment and a fine. On appeal, the appellant argued that the prosecution failed to prove that the contraband sample tested at the Chemical Examiner’s Laboratory was the same sample seized at the scene, and that several chain-of-custody safeguards were not observed: no seizure mahazar at the scene, no specimen seal produced, no forwarding note, and no examination of the officials who handled the sample during transit. The High Court examined a series of precedents that require strict compliance with seizure, sealing, forwarding, and chain-of-custody formalities and the non-production or non-examination of responsible officials undermines the reliability of the lab report. It cited Sasidharan, Sathi, Ravi, Bhaskaran, Rajamma, Ramachandran and Vijay Pandey to underscore that the contraband must be linked to the laboratory test by admissible, tamper-proof chain evidence. The court concluded that the prosecution failed to establish the tamper-proof despatch and linkage, rendering Ext.P7 without evidentiary value, and that mere laboratory testing cannot sustain the conviction. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed; the appellant is acquitted and set at liberty, with deposits to be disbursed as per law.
Omana v. Leela and Prabhakaran is a Regular Second Appeal heard by the Kerala High Court (Single Judge) arising from O.S. No.352/2011 of the Additional Munsiff Court, Cherthala and A.S.No.84/2014 of the Sub Court, Cherthala. The suit sought a declaration of title to plaint Item No.2, recovery of possession, and a permanent injunction, over the plaint schedule property along with a shed. The defendant-appellant claimed that Ext.A2 sale deed covered a building under construction and that she had an independent right over the partly completed structure, including an irrevocable license under the Indian Easements Act, 1882 (Section 60(b)). She contended that the part of the property under construction was not transferred with Ext.A2 and relied on Patnaik and Co. v. State of Orissa (AIR 1965 SC 1655) to argue that the maxim quicquid fixatur solo, solo cedit is not applicable in India. The trial court decreed in favour of the plaintiffs: title to Item No.2, possession on payment of Rs.25,000, and a permanent injunction; the appellate court affirmed. The High Court upheld the findings, holding that Ext.A2 covered the plaint schedule property including the partly completed building, with no independent right or irrevocable license proven, and that the plaintiffs’ title was valid. The Regular Second Appeal was dismissed, and interlocutory orders vacated. The decision reflects that the maxim about fixing to the soil is not applicable in India and emphasizes the necessity of pleading and proving any independent right to structures.
This is an appeal by the accused Thulasidharan Pillai challenging a conviction recorded by the Additional Sessions Court (Adhoc)-II Kollam in SC No.1098/2011. The accused was convicted under Sections 302 and 307 IPC for murders and attempted murder committed on 2 January 2011 at around 10:30 PM in the house where he lived with his wife and her uncle, Chandrasekharan Pillai. The prosecution case proceeds largely on circumstantial evidence: the deceased Chandrasekharan Pillai died from injuries inflicted with a weapon (MO1 chopper) and the accused is alleged to have caused injuries to the wife (PW2) as well. The evidence relied upon includes PW2 (an eyewitness who is also the injured party) and PW3 (sister-in-law), with other witnesses detailing the sequence of events and the weapon’s recovery from the accused’s courtyard. Post-mortem and wound certificates (Ext.P6, Ext.P4, Ext.P5) corroborate the injuries and cause of death; Ext.P8(a) shows recovery of the weapon. The trial court found the circumstantial chain complete and consistent with guilt. The defense contends lack of direct eyewitness, reliance on circumstantial evidence, and cites authorities on circumstantial evidence to argue for acquittal. The High Court, however, agrees with the trial court, holding that the evidence sufficiently establishes guilt beyond reasonable doubt and refuses to interfere with the conviction or the sentence.
WA Nos. 1280 of 2022; 1427 of 2022; 1428 of 2022 The three writ appeals arise from three writ petitions challenging the 2019-2012 recruitment by Kidangoor Service Co-operatve Bank to the posts of Salesman, Peon and Watcher. A central grievance across petitions was that the external agency/individual entrusted to conduct the written examinations was not empaneled by the Government, raising allegations of illegality, nepotism and political influence. The petitions were heard together before a common bench; the matters focus on whether the selection process, tainted by lack of empanelment and potential bias, should be entirely quashed or salvaged by continuing from the point where illegality occurred. The learned Single Judge directed the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies to consider a representation and decide, after hearing both sides, within a fixed period. The Bank and its supporters urged limiting the remedy to the portion of the process affected by illegality and allowing the selection to proceed with an empaneled external agency, to preserve vested rights of candidates who were eligible under the notification. The respondents defended stricter scrutiny of the process, highlighting nepotism and political influence. The High Court, in a common judgment, held that the process can be continued from the point of vitiation with a government-empaneled external agency, modified the Single Judge’s order, and directed compliance with related constitutional and statutory principles, disposing of the appeals with costs to reflect the public interest in transparency.
Ravikumaran filed a suit for recovery of possession of the plaint schedule immovable property. The trial court dismissed the suit, holding that the respondent failed to establish title. In appeal, the District Judge reversed and decreed in favor of the respondent. The Regular Second Appeal challenges this. The property is about 1 Acre 22 cents in Valiyavallampathy village, identified as part of resurvey No. 515/6 (formerly 568); the plaintiff claims title through his father, Kambayi, who obtained a purchase certificate and from partition in 1984; he contends that in 2004 his father sold the property to him; the first appellant and successors claimed they had possession via sale deeds (Nos. 59 of 1958 and 1236 of 1960) and that the property was in their possession; they prayed for dismissal. The trial court observed that title claims were weak but the action is for possession. The District Judge erred by concluding that failure to obtain a Land Tribunal purchase certificate justified relief in the plaintiff’s favor. The court noted that the plaint schedule property cannot be identified by the patta or survey numbers and that Sec. 72K(2) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act does not apply since there is no property bearing Survey No. 568. The High Court ultimately holds that the predecessor’s title could not be proved; the identity of property and title remain unresolved; accordingly the trial court’s decree is restored and the appeal is allowed.
This is a Kerala High Court criminal revision under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C. by the sole accused, K. P. Sharangadhran, challenging a conviction for an offence under Section 138 NI Act arising from cheque dated 25.09.2017 for Rs.5 lakh issued in discharge of a debt, bounced and led to a trial, followed by a confirmed conviction on appeal. The trial court convicted and sentenced the accused to simple imprisonment till rising of the court plus a fine of Rs.5.3 lakh, with the fine to be paid as compensation under Cr.P.C. Section 357(1). The Sessions Court, in Crl.Appeal No.86/2021, confirmed the conviction and enhanced compensation to Rs.7,66,250. The High Court, while upholding the conviction, refrains from re‑appreciating evidence and emphasizes that presumptions under S.118 and S.139 NI Act are rebuttable, requiring the accused to establish a defence by preponderance of probabilities. Key precedents cited include Rangappa v. Sri Mohan (upholding presumptions and reverse onus), Bir Singh v. Mukesh Kumar (onus to rebut presumption; evidence may be adduced by the complainant’s materials), Kalamani Tex v. Balasubramanian (presumptions under S.118/139), and Vijayan R. v. Baby (compensation framework). The Court also cites revisional‑jurisdiction principles from State of Kerala v. Puttumana Illath Jathavedan Namboodiri and Sanjaysinh Ramrao Chavan. Ultimately, the court dismisses the revision petition, confirms conviction, and permits five months to pay the enhanced compensation, with directions to appear by 11.04.2023 and execution stayed till 10.04.2023.
This is a Kerala High Court revision under Cr.P.C. Sections 397 and 401 by Jose V.J. challenging a conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act for dishonour of a cheque for Rs. 1,35,240 dated 09.07.2014. The trial court convicted the accused and sentenced him to six months’ simple imprisonment and to pay Rs. 1,35,240 as compensation, with an additional two months’ imprisonment in default of payment. The Additional Sessions Judge modified the sentence to simple imprisonment till the rising of the court, but upheld the conviction. The revision argues that Ext. P8 (the cheque) was not proved to be executed by the accused; that the underlying transaction was not proved; that the complainant misused a cheque given as security in a chitty; consequently the conviction and sentence should be set aside. The High Court, however, reaffirms the concurrent findings, noting PWs 1 and 2 and Exts P1–P11. It discusses the statutory presumption under Sections 118 and 139 NI Act, citing Rangappa v. Sri Mohan and Bir Singh v. Mukesh Kumar, among others, to explain that there is a rebuttable initial presumption in favor of the complainant and that the standard of proof to rebut is the preponderance of probabilities. It also delves into the scope of revisional jurisdiction, citing Kerala and Supreme Court decisions, and concludes that the revision petition cannot be entertained to reweigh the evidence. The court dismisses the revision petition. It grants four months to pay the compensation and directs the accused to surrender on 08 December 2023.
This Regular Second Appeal arises from a partition suit O.S.112/2007 filed by K. Raveendran, who contends that the properties involved between him and the defendants originated from Kuttan Nadar via an Oodukoor settlement award dated 26.01.1952. After the fathers’ and mother’s deaths, plaintiff and defendants claim succession to plaint A–F schedule properties. The trial court fixed a preliminary decree of partition excluding Exts.B1–B3 and Exts.B6 and A3 from partition, while allowing partition of the remaining properties and directing the plaintiff to seek final decree within 60 days. The appellate court affirmed the same. The appellant challenged only the partiable nature of the plaint F schedule property, contending Exts.B6 and A3 are void/sham; the court rejected these arguments on facts, but held that the rights of title holders under Exts.B1–B3 and Exts.B6/A3 could not be partitioned. The High Court, exercising its power under Section 100 CPC read with Order XLII, examined whether a substantial question of law exists, citing Nazir Mohamed, Kondiba Kadam, Santosh Hazari, and Government of Kerala v. Joseph. Ultimately, the Court dismissed the second appeal for lack of a formulated substantial question of law, while noting that interlocutory orders are vacated and final decree proceedings should proceed consistent with the earlier directions.
This writ petition filed under Article 226 challenges an order of the Drugs Disposal Committee and seeks release of Ford Figo car KL-65-L-3810. The prosecution in Crime No. 404/2021 of Pudukkad Police Station alleges a conspiracy to import 154.3 kilograms of ganja from outside Kerala for sale, with accused Nos. 1 and 2 transporting the ganja in tempo van KL-58-T-2312 and the 3rd accused having brought the tempo for rent. The 3rd and 4th accused are said to have piloted a car (KL-65-L-3810) from Valayar, Palakkad, ahead of the tempo, and the contraband was seized around 14:15 hours on 01.08.2021 near the Paliyekkara Toll Plaza. The car and contraband were seized; accused Nos. 3 and 4 were arrested later. The RC owner of the car seeks release, contending no involvement in the crime and no evidence that contraband was carried in the car; the Drugs Disposal Committee had rejected Ext. P5. The pivotal issue is whether a vehicle piloting or accompanying another with contraband qualifies as a ‘conveyance used in carrying’ under Section 60(3) NDPS, justifying confiscation under Section 52-A. The Court relies on Thausif Ahammed Bengre and Smart Logistics to hold that only a conveyance used in carrying contraband is confiscable; piloting or accompanying a vehicle transporting contraband does not fit the text. The Court thus set aside Ext. P5, ordered the car to be released to the petitioner on conditions, and directed production before the Special Court within ten days with bond and conditions. The judgment clarifies that release does not absolve the other accused of culpability.
This is a Kerala High Court writ appeal from a dispute over licensing of a market venture run by the Thanima Agro Development Society. The appellant alleges that the Thodupuzha Municipality erred in treating the consent required under Section 492(3) of the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994 as a separate written document, and seeks a declaration that Ext.P4, an agreement dated 27.08.2020 between the petitioner and the 3rd and 4th respondents, amounts to valid written consent for the business activity described as “Thanima 60 x 40 Customer Friendly Open Market” and should be treated as sufficient for licensing. The petitioner also seeks certiorari to quash Exhibits P7 and P9 notices and a mandamus to grant the license for the building no. 1/448C premises. The respondents contend that Section 492(3) requires a distinct written consent; they point to inconsistent signatures, with Ext.P4 disputed by the 3rd and 4th respondents and supported by an FIR (Crime No. 1131/2021) alleging forgery. The facts allege the market operated without a license, while affidavits and an investigation suggest forged documents. The High Court ultimately refused relief, noting the alleged forgery, and held no need to grant declaratory relief; the writ appeal is dismissed. The case underscores the tension between landlord consent, written compliance, and alleged document fraud in municipal licensing.
This is a Rent Control Revision arising from eviction proceedings under the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965. The revision petitions were filed by four tenants (Unaiza, Shabana, Sumayyamol, Ameena H.Y.) who are legal representatives of the deceased original tenant in BRC(OP) No.10 of 2015 before the Rent Control Court at Karunagappally. The landlords had moved for eviction under sections 11(2)(b) and 11(3) on grounds of arrears and bona fide need. An ex parte eviction order was passed by the Rent Control Court on 13.03.2019. The tenants sought to set aside this order through I.A. No.750 of 2019 under Rule 13(3) of the Kerala Rules and Section 151 CPC; the Rent Control Court dismissed that application on 22.08.2019. The tenants challenged the dismissal in the Rent Control Appellate Authority via R.C.A.No.33 of 2019, which on 24.03.2022 affirmed the dismissal. The petitioners then approached this Court under Section 20 of the Act, arguing that the question of landlord-tenant relationship remained unresolved before this Court and that participation in the trial would defeat the pending challenge. After hearing counsel for both sides and considering decisions such as Rukmini Amma Saradamma, T. Sivasubramaniam, Ubaiba, Hindustan Petroleum, and Thankamony Amma, the High Court held there was no illegality or impropriety warranting interference and dismissed the revision. The final result: revision petition dismissed.
The petitioner, retired after ~30 years of service as Secretary of the Pathanamthitta Service Co-Operative Bank, seeks a writ of mandamus to secure the balance gratuity of Rs. 4,54,573 payable under the Master Policy No. 45906 issued by LIC under the Employees Group Gratuity Pension Scheme. LIC transferred Rs. 14,54,573 to the bank, but the bank disbursed only Rs. 10,00,000, retaining the remainder. The petition hinges on the entitlement to better terms under Section 4(5) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, which allows a higher gratuity than the statutory ceiling when negotiated or contracted. The court places heavy weight on the Full Bench decision in Chandrasekharan Nair v. Kerala State Cooperative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank Ltd. and others (2017 (4) KLT 276), which held that liability to pay gratuity does not shift to the insurer; the maturity value under the master policy would go to the employee, and any excess or deficit would be borne by the employer in accordance with the Central Act. The judgment also discusses the supremacy of the Central Act over state enactments (Articles 254, Section 14) and rejects Circular No.5/2016 as misconceived. The court affirms the proposition that employees covered by both the Central Act and state Rules may claim higher terms under Section 4(5). It directs the Joint Registrar to ensure payment of the balance gratuity with 6% simple interest from 01.06.2017 within two months.
This is a Rent Control Revision under the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, filed by the tenant D. Dileep Kumar challenging an eviction order. The Rent Control Court, North Paravur, issued an order under Section 12(3) of the Act after the tenant failed to deposit admitted rent arrears, despite directions to do so within two weeks from 19 February 2021. The tenant sought extensions of time (I.A. Nos. 4/2021 and 5/2021), which were dismissed, and the court ultimately directed eviction of the petitioner. The tenant appealed to the Rent Control Appellate Authority, which dismissed the appeal on 17 August 2022. The revision under Section 20 of the Act has been filed by the tenant, challenging the eviction order and the lower court’s order. The respondent-landlord contends that Section 12(3) eviction was properly warranted and that non-payment of rent from April 2019 onwards cannot be excused. The tenant argues Covid-19 induced financial stringency prevented payment. The High Court, after hearing, upholds the concurrent judgments, and refuses to interfere with the eviction order, noting that the revision cannot re-appreciate evidence, in line with precedent. The order finally disposes of the revision by dismissing it, while granting the tenant one month to deposit arrears.
This is a Motor Accident Claims Appeal (MACA 1518 of 2012) arising from an order in O.P.(MV) No.2629/2004 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thrissur, challenging an award of compensation for injuries sustained on 22.07.2004 when a bus (Reg. KL8/C-279) driven by respondent 2 struck the petitioner’s motorcycle, injuring him. The Tribunal directed respondents 1–3 to pay Rs.59,000 at 8% interest per annum from filing until realization, which the appellant contends is inadequate. The High Court, referring to Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance (2011) 13 SCC 236 and Sayed Saidq v. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (2014) 2 SCC 735, reconsiders several quantum components. Noting lack of corroboration for Ext. A10 disability certificate, the court holds that the notional monthly income should be fixed at Rs.4,500 (per the cited precedents) rather than the Tribunal’s Rs.3,000, and determines disability at 5% rather than 9%. Loss of earnings is recalculated to Rs.18,000 (4,500 × 4 months); loss of disability Rs.37,800; pain and suffering Rs.20,000; loss of amenities Rs.10,000; bystander expenses Rs.4,200; transportation/damages to clothing Rs.6,000. The aggregate enhanced compensation amounts to Rs.41,650. The appeal is allowed in part; the insurer is directed to deposit the enhanced amount with interest at 9% per annum and proportionate costs within two months after receipt of a certified copy of the judgment.
This writ appeal, WA No.348 of 2022, challenges an interim order dated 28.01.2022 passed in W.P.(C) No.2680 of 2022 by the Kerala High Court, Thiruvananthapuram, relating to security under the SARFAESI Act, 2002. The respondent-borrower, Santhakumari B., faced coercive action under the Act for default on debt secured by two properties: a residential 9-cent plot at Manacaud (Exhibit P2) and a larger 6.10-acre parcel at Re.Sy.No.221/12, Maanikal Village. The interim order protected the residential property for two months on condition of depositing Rs.10 lakhs by 15.03.2022 and permitted the bank to proceed against the 6.10 acres. The bank contends the writ court ignored the substantial liability (nearly Rs.4 crores) and the bank’s right to realize security under SARFAESI, arguing the residential stay unduly delays recovery. The petitioner acknowledges the bank’s claim and asserts the need to safeguard the home due to non-functioning Debt Recovery Tribunal, while noting her willingness to proceed with the 6.10-acre asset. Upon considering statutory provisions and precedents, the court references K.S. Das v. State of Kerala (Larger Bench) and Thomas P.T. v. Bijo Thomas to explain maintainability of appeals against interim orders. Ultimately, the court does not interfere with the impugned order, dismissing the writ appeal but permitting early writ-court disposal, with pending interlocutory applications closed.
This is a Kerala High Court review petition under RP Nos. 51 and 52 of 2016 challenging the Division Bench’s judgment in WA Nos. 1506/2013 and 1703/2013, which had set aside the appellant’s absorption in the University service and denied compensation. The petitioner, Dr. K.P. Jaya, contends that she sought absorption in the University and maintenance of service continuity, challenging the termination in W.P. No. 15330/2005 and seeking compensation for alleged mental and financial loss. The Single Judge declined relief, and the Division Bench followed precedents indicating there was no negligence, malafides, or unlawfulness by the University to warrant absorption or compensation. The review petitions argue for equity, justice, and good conscience, insisting that if there was any error in the selection process, the University should bear responsibility for compensation or placement, including creating a supernumerary post. The court, after hearing counsel, reiterates the strict limits of review (Order 47 CPC) and concludes there is no error apparent on the face of the record or other grounds to interfere with the Division Bench’s conclusions. It relies on established precedents on review and the absence of negligence or malafide by the University, and ultimately dismisses the petitions. The decision emphasizes that review is not an appeal and cannot substitute a different view of evidence.
CRL.M.C. No. 4298 of 2021 Sabari Sreekumar, the sole accused in CC 553/2018 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate IX, Ernakulam, challenges the criminal proceedings arising from crime 914/2018 at Palarivattom Police Station. The case traces a June 30, 2018 incident when a police bus transporting remand prisoners allegedly was obstructed by the petitioner’s car, leading to alleged damage to the car and subsequent registration of offences under IPC sections 341 (wrongful restraint), 283 (obstructing public servant in discharge of duty) and 353 (assault or use of criminal force to deter a public servant). The petitioner contends the incident has been misrepresented: the bus driver allegedly drove rashly, caused damage to his car, and police treated him unfairly, including arrest and overnight detention without proper recording. He argues that no criminal force was used against a public servant and thus Section 353 IPC cannot apply; he also asserts the second case against the bus driver was misused. Relying on Devaki Amma v. State of Kerala and Durga Prasad and others v. State of Kerala, the petitioner contends that misuse of power to arrest in a non-bailable offence constitutes abuse of process. The court, however, finds the essential ingredients of Section 353 IPC absent and notes possible abuse of process. It exercises inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and quashes the proceedings, exonerating the petitioner. The Crl.M.C. is allowed.
WP(C) NO. 33322 OF 2016 & Conn. cases The Kerala High Court, before Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V, heard a batch of connected writ petitions challenging the upper age limit of 20 years prescribed for admission to the Integrated Five-year LLB Course for 2016-2017 under the Legal Education Rules, 2008 (Clause 28). The petitioners—several aspiring candidates listed across WP(C) Nos. 33322/2016 and connected cases—contend that the age restriction is ultra vires the Advocates Act and void for violating fundamental rights; they also argue that after provisional admissions and rank-list publication, the Bar Council of India/amended rules could not be retroactively applied to disqualify them. The petitioners rely on various authorities to urge invalidity of Clause 28: judgments from Punjab & Haryana and Allahabad High Courts declaring Clause 28 unconstitutional, and Madras High Court upholding it, with Supreme Court SLPs subsequently dismissed. Kerala High Court noted substantial controversy on the issue and stayed Government orders that imposed the upper age limit, as well as directions to collect birth proofs. The court ultimately held that it would be in the interest of justice to make its interim order absolute, thereby permitting all candidates to participate and complete the course; the petitioners are entitled to certificates on successful completion, effectively closing the writ petitions. The decision emphasizes the need to avoid erasing the academic years already undertaken by the students.
W.P.(C) No. 25722 of 2020 The petitioner, S. Nalinakshan, challenges Ext.P5 dated 06.11.2019, a notice issued by the Assistant Commissioner (Kollam Group) re-fixing rent for Room No.201 in the Devaswom Building at Anandavalleeswaram, under the Travancore Devaswom Board (TD Board). The room has been used as the petitioner’s Advocate’s Office; originally, the rent was fixed at Rs. 200 per month in 1992. Ext.P5 proposes a revised rent of Rs. 4,331 per month, with a claimed annual increase of 10%. The petitioner asks for renewal of the rent agreement at Rs. 1,515 per month, with a 10% annual enhancement for 12 months from 29.02.2020, and points to Ext.P3 (the Court’s 25.06.2019 decision in W.P.(C)No.13483 of 2019) and Ext.P4 (receipt showing Rs. 1,515 paid) to justify his position. The respondents counter that under the Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950, the Board administers and preserves Devaswom properties and must ensure revenue, relying on redetermination based on Delhi Schedule of Rates (DSR) and several precedents (including Travancore Devaswom Board v. Thanath International; M.V. Ramasubbiar; A.A. Gopalakrishnan; Suneesh K.S.; Abu K.S.; T. Krishnakumar). The High Court ultimately directs refixation at market rent with hearing, two months’ time, and Board approval, aligning with existing precedents protecting Devaswom properties and promoting fair income generation for the Board’s administration.
