PANGAODE KAVIL SRI. BHAGAVATHY TEMPLE TRUST v. N. BALAKRISHNAN
Case at a glance
Outcome
Set aside
Order of the lowercourt is hereby set aside
Provisions considered
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 O. 1 r. 8
Judgment
V. RAMKUMAR, J.* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *W.P.(C) No. 29320 of 2008* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Dated: 3-10-2008JUDGMENTThe petitioners in this Writ Petition are theplaintiffs in O.S. 1991 of 2007 on the file of the Ist Addl. Munsiff's Court, Thiruvananthapuram. The said suit isone for declaration that the plaintiff trust alone iscompetent to deal with the affairs of the PangodeKavil Sree Bhagavathy Temple Trust and the plaintschedule property in preference to the 8th defendantSamithi and in the alternative to set aside a settlementdated 25-09-2006 of SRO, Nedumangadu and forconsequential injunction. The suit has been filed under Order 1 Rule 8 C.P.C. Along with the plaint, theplaintiffs also filed I.A. No. 10214 of 2007 seeking atemporary injunction in terms of the prayer in theplaint. Eventhough the learned Munsiff granted atemporary injunction as prayed for on 11-4-2008, in anappeal preferred by the defendants as C.M.A. No.
Operative part
64 of2008 the II Addl. District Judge, Thiruvananthapuramhas, taking note of the scramble for possession andmanagement of the temple which generates sizeable W.P.C. 29320 of 2008+-:2:-revenue has though it fit to place the temple and itsproperties under receivership with a direction that fourpersons from each side shall be selected as receivers. The operative portion of the judgment of the lowerappellate court reads as follows:-“In the result, the appeal allowed in part. Order of the lowercourt is hereby set aside. The lower court is hereby directedto appoint a party receivers within 3 days on receipt of thisorder for taking possession of the plaint schedule propertiesand to administer the affairs of the temple till the disposal ofthe suit. Four persons each from the plaintiff's anddefendants' side shall be selected as the party receivers. It ishereby made clear that the party receivers will not beentitled to any remuneration or any payment for the servicerendered by them as party receivers.
They shall not bepermitted to meet any expenditure exceeding Rs. 5,000/-p.m. without permission of the lower court. Party receiversshall keep an account of expenditure and the servicesrendered by them while administering the temple and tosubmit report to the lower court on every month. They shallnot have any right to create any encumbrance, lien or chargeover the temple properties or its assets”.2.Eventhough the learned counselappearing for the writ petitioner /plaintiff assailed thejudgment of the lower appellate court, I see no reasonto interfere with the said judgment which has providedthe most democratic way of finding a solution for thedisputes till the suit is finally disposed of by the trialcourt. It cannot be gainsaid that the temple is havingsubstantial assets and revenue which explains hescramble for possession. In a situation like this, where the properties could be said to be in medio, receivership is the best possible method by which theproperties can be preserved so that ultimately the W.P.C. 29320 of 2008+-:3:-person who succeeds in the litigation is not deprived ofthe corpus as well as the income of the subject matter.of dispute. This Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed withoutprejudice to the right of the petitioner/plaintiff toestablish their right in the suit. The suit shall bedisposed of untrammelled by the observations in theimpugned orders. Dated this the 3rd October 2008.V. RAMKUMAR, (JUDGE)ani.
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Order of the lowercourt is hereby set aside
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — O. 1 r. 8.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Kerala High Court, on 03 Oct 2008. The bench was V RAMKUMAR.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.