Allow Cookies!
By using our website, you agree to the use of cookies
The issue before the Kerala High Court was related to the recovery of possession of a Temple Property. The temple properties belonged to a Namboothiri family, and the possession of the same is with the defendants at present. The defendants elucidated the possession of the property by placing reliance on the lease deed executed for an unspecified period by Karanavar of Namboothiri family.
It is imperative to distinguish the partition deed and the lease deed in respect of the same property. Purchase certificates were issued to the defendants under the Kerala Land Reforms Act. The plaintiff, a member of the family, attempted to recover the possession of the temple properties and argued that the division of property is in contravention with the partition deed. Before the matter reached the High Court, it fell in the two lower rungs of the judiciary which are the trial court and the First Appellate Court.
The Trial Court held the leased deeds to be invalid because it contravened with the partition deed, which dedicated the properties to the temple. The purchase certificates are invalid because of the exemption of temple properties from the Land Reforms Act. Despite the fact that a joint family ceased to exist after repealing the Kerala Joint Hindu Family System (Abolition) Act 1975, the plaintiff is entitled to institute a suit as a co-owner of the properties.
When the defendants appealed against the trial court’s decree, the first appellate court agreed with the findings of the trial court except for the co-ownership of the plaintiff in the property. The court observed that the partition deed dedicated the properties to the temple. Hence, they were no longer family properties. Therefore, the appellate court upheld the reasoning that the plaintiff could recover the possession of the properties as a worshipper of the temple.
The defendants again appealed against this order in the High Court of Kerala. The High Court relied on Veruareddi Ramaraghava Reddy and Others Vs. Konduru Seshur Reddy and Others [AIR 1967 SC 436]. In this case, it was held that a worshipper, unless he has the right of possession over the property, cannot recover the possession because he does not exercise the right of deity to protect its interest. Worshippers, however, have the right to institute suit for a proclamation that the alienation of the temple properties by the de jure shebait is invalid and not binding the temple.
The High Court said that the interest of the property would vest in the deity of the temple to which such properties were dedicated. Therefore only the deity could recover the possession of properties in a suit through ‘next friend’ or trustee/shebait of the temple. Even if the trustee/shebait act against the interests of the temple properties, the worshipper or believer can legally represent the idol but cannot seek recovery of the possession.
The ratio applied by the court was based on the execution of the decree, which may be passed in favour of the plaintiff. If the decree favours the worshipper, then he shall be the only person to execute the decree. Further, there is no guarantee that the execution by him would benefit the temple. If the property does not reach the hands of the trustee, he would have to institute the again in this regard. Therefore, the encumbrances over the properties, which may be created by the worshipper having obtained decree in favour of his, cannot be ruled out.
In the absence of any contravention of partition deed with the lease deed, the high court found no reason to hold the lease deed invalid. In light of this, the high court allowed the second appeal and disagreed with the findings of the other two lower courts. The Court concluded stating that this order does not prevent the deity/trustee/shebait from filing a suit for recovery of the possession of the suit properties within the boundaries of the law.
86540
103860
630
114
59824