Kerala High Court
Vallikunnam Kaduvinal Pariyarathu ... vs Gopalakrishnan Nair on 9 October, 2024
1
OPC 456/2017
2024:KER:78090
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI
WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2024 / 17TH ASWINA, 1946
OP(C) NO. 456 OF 2017
JUDGMENT IN OS NO.246 OF 2012 OF ASSISTANT SESSIONS COURT/SUB
COURT / COMMERCIAL COURT, MAVELIKKARA
PETITIONER/S:
VALLIKUNNAM KADUVINAL PARIYARATHU KULANGARA SRI BHADRA
BHAGAVATHI KSHETHRAM
REP BY CHANADRAN NAIR,S/O NARAYANAN NAIR,AIKKARA
KIZHAKKATHIL VEEDU,KADUVINAL MURI, VALLIKKUNNAM.
BY ADVS.
SRI.R.SUNIL KUMAR
SMT.A.SALINI LAL
RESPONDENT/S:
1 GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR, S/O NARAYANAN NAIR,KRISHNA BHAVAN VEDU
(KOPPARA),KADUVINAL MURI, VALLIKUNNAM,ALAPUZHA-690 101.
2 ANIL KUMAR, KRISHNA BHAVAN VEDU (KOPPARA),KADUVINAL MURI,
VALLIKUNNAM,ALAPUZHA-690 101.
3 AJITH KUMAR, KRISHNA BHAVAN VEDU (KOPPARA),KADUVINAL MURI,
VALLIKUNNAM,ALAPUZHA-690 101.
4 ASOKA KUMAR, S/O NARAYANAN NAIR,KRISHNA BHAVAN VEDU
(KOPPARA),KADUVINAL MURI, VALLIKUNNAM,ALAPUZHA-690 101.
5 KRISHNA KUMAR,KRISHNA BHAVAN VEDU (KOPPARA),KADUVINAL MURI,
VALLIKUNNAM,ALAPUZHA-690 101.
6 DHANANJAYAN NAMPOOTHIRI, S/O KRISHNAN NAMPOOTHIRI,
MANGALASSERI ILLOM, KADUVINAL MURI,VALLIKKUNNAM-690 101
7 S. KRISHANAN NAIR
KRISHNA NIVAS,KADUVINAL MURI, VALLIKUNNAM,ALAPUZHA-690 101.
2
OPC 456/2017
2024:KER:78090
8 GOVINDAN NAIR,S/O SADASIVAN NAIR,SADALAYAM VEEDU,KADUVINAL
MURI, VALLIKUNNAM VILLAGE-690 101.
9 PODIYAN SURESH
NANDEEVANAM,KADUVINAL MURI, VALLIKUNNAM-690 101.
10 SUDHAMANI
MANATHARAYIL,KADUVINAL MURI, VALLIKUNNAM,-690 101.
11 SASIDHARAN KUTTIYIL VILAYIL VEEDU
KADUVINAL MURI, VALLIKKUNNAM-690 101.
12 CHANDRAN NAIR, AIKKARA KIZHAKKATHIL VEEDU,KADUVINAL MURI,
VALLIKKUNNAM-690 101.
13 RAJAN,MALAMELKIZHAKKATHIL VEEDU,KADUVINAL MURI,VALLIKKUNNAM-
690 101.
14 SANKARA PILLAI,CHAITHANYAYIL, KADUVINAL MURI,VALLIKKUNNAM-
690 101.
BY ADVS.
SRI.V.N.MADHUSUDANAN
DR.V.N.SANKARJEE
SRI.S.SIDHARDHAN
SMT.M.SUSEELA
SMT.R.UDAYA JYOTHI
SRI.M.M.VINOD
THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17.2.2017, THE COURT
TODAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
3
OPC 456/2017
2024:KER:78090
JUDGMENT
(Dated this the 9th day of October 2024) The petitioner is the additional 3rd plaintiff in O.S.No.246 of 2012 on the files of the sub court, Mavelikkara. The O.S. was filed for a declaration that the right to administer Kaduvinal Pariyarathukulangara, Sree Bhadra Bhagavathi Temple Vallikunnam is on the Plaintiff temple committee and for an injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the administration of the Temple.
2. The case of the plaintiffs is that the Temple is a common worship place of all Hindus at Kaduvinal, Vallikunnam. Plaint A's scheduled property has an extent of 44 cents, and the Plaint B's schedule has 64 cents, which was purchased by the 1st plaintiff with the money collected from the public. The temple is managed by the 1st plaintiff committee who is elected from the people of locality. Defendants 1 to 5 are members of the Koppara family. 4 OPC 456/2017
2024:KER:78090 Plaint A scheduled property belongs to the said Tarawad. But in the revenue records it is shown as one belonging to Pariryarathukulangara Sri Bhadra Bhagavathi Devaswam. Except for 11 cents of property, the remaining items are shown in the name of predecessors of defendants Nos.1 to 5. As the Koppara family could not maintain the temple, the public at large created the plaintiff for the administration of the temple. After the plaintiff took the temple, the family temple's character changed to that of a public temple. The father of defendants 1 to 5 was helping the committee, and he was considered Rakshadhikari. On 15.9.1999, he handed over the temple administration to the plaintiff by signing the minutes in that regard.
3. After the death of the defendant's father, the defendants never cooperated with the plaintiff committee. As defendant Nos.1 to 5 denied the very right of the plaintiff, the suit was filed. 5 OPC 456/2017
2024:KER:78090 Defendant Nos.1, 3 and 5 filed a written statement contending that the plaintiff has no right over the temple and the temple is not a public worship place. The property does not belong to the deity but belongs to the forefathers of the defendants. The plaintiff does not have any right over Plaint B schedule property.
4. The 2nd defendant filed a separate written statement contending that A schedule property was managed by his father and after his death, the same is managed by him. After filing a written statement, the 2nd plaintiff filed an application for amending the plaint as I.A.No.590/2016, which was dismissed by the trial court and in O.P.(C.) No. 2069 of 2016, this court allowed the amendment. After the amendment, additional written statements were filed by the defendants. In the additional written statement, a definite contention was taken by the 4th defendant that in the revenue records, the plaint schedule is shown as one 6 OPC 456/2017 2024:KER:78090 belonging to the father of defendants 1 to 5. After his death, the property devolved on their mother. On coming to know of the said contention, the petitioners/plaintiffs preferred a complaint before the District Collector on 20.2.2016 for cancelling the mutation. In the said circumstances the plaintiffs filed another amendment application as I.A. No.2 of 2017. The 4th defendant filed an objection to the said application, stating that if the amendment is allowed, it will change the character of the suit. The 1st defendant also filed an objection stating that by the amendment, the petitioners want to take away the admission in their favour. The trial court, after considering the averments in the petition accompanying the affidavit for amendment, as well as the objections by Ext.P9, dismissed the same on the ground that, as per the present amendment, the plaintiffs want to deny the paramount title of the family of defendant Nos.1 to 5 in respect to 7 OPC 456/2017 2024:KER:78090 the plaint schedule, which is inconsistent with the plea that the property where the temple situated belonged to the Koppara family. Another reason is that this court has already directed the disposal of the case before vacation, and if the amendment is allowed, it will delay the trial. The petitioner challenges Ext.P19 order in this Original Petition.
5. A perusal of Ext.P6 (I.A.No.2 of the 2017 Amendment Application) would make it clear that originally, the plaint schedule property, as per the revenue records, belonged to Pariryarathukulangara Sri Bhadra Bhagavathi Devaswam and it is a public worship place. When the revenue records were subsequently perused, it was understood that the scheduled property, which stood in the name of Devaswom, had been mutated in the name of Sri.S. Narayanan Nair, who is predecessor in respect of defendants 1 to 5. When the suit was filed, the details 8 OPC 456/2017 2024:KER:78090 regarding the change of mutation were unknown to the plaintiff; therefore, the pleadings are to be amended in tune with the revenue records.
6. The counsel for the petitioner argued that the amendment now sought to be incorporated is only in the nature of a clarification as the subsequent proceedings would show that the plaint A schedule property, admittedly had been mutated from the name of the Devaswom to the name the predecessor-in-interest of defendant Nos.1 to 5. The said amendment will not change the character of the suit nor withdrawal of any admission. He relied on a judgment of the apex court in Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited (2022 SCC OnLine SC 1128).
7. The counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, argued that the petitioner is not entitled to amend the pleadings, 9 OPC 456/2017 2024:KER:78090 as the same is inconsistent with the original pleadings. Now, what is sought is withdrawal of the admission regarding the family's ownership of the Temple.
8. It is true that as per the original pleadings, the plaint A schedule property belongs to the tarawad even though in the revenue records, it is shown as one belonging to Pariryarathukulangara Sri Bhadra Bhagavathi Devaswam. Thereafter, an amendment application was filed, which was allowed by this court by Ext.P4, and the amendment was carried out. It was thereafter that additional written statements were filed to amend the plaint. The defendants have raised a contention that the plaint A schedule now stands in the name of the predecessor- in-interests of defendants 1 to 5, and after his death, the same devolved upon his mother. The additional written statement is filed on 22.11.2016. It is after this, on 3.1.2017, 10 OPC 456/2017 2024:KER:78090 the plaintiffs filed the present I.A. for amending the plaint for incorporating a new paragraph as 7(a) detailing the way in which the plaint A schedule property, which stood in the name of Devaswom, has been mutated in the name of Sri. Narayanan Nair. The petitioner has also filed additional documents which will show that on the basis of the complaint initiated by the plaintiff, the Revenue Divisional Officer has issued proceedings on 22.5.2019 whereby the mutation effected as per M.S.A.No.152/2004 has been cancelled. The said proceedings was issued based on the judgment of this court in WPC 1016/2018 dated 1.8.2018, which is produced as Ext.P21. So, it can be concluded that parallel proceedings were taken by the Revenue department for cancelling the mutation effected in the name of Sri.Narayanan Nair and, therefore, the petitioner is justified in filing the amendment application to incorporate the details of the 11 OPC 456/2017 2024:KER:78090 mutation. In Life Insurance Corporation of India (supra), the apex court held that all amendments are to be allowed, which are necessary for determining the real question in controversy, provided it does not cause injustice or prejudice to the other side. The prayer for amendment is to be allowed if the amendment is required for effective and proper adjudication of the controversy between the parties and to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, provided the parties seeking amendment do not seek to withdraw any clear admission made by the party which confers a right on the other side.
9. As argued by the counsel for the petitioner, the amendment which is sought in the application does not take away any admission. The amendment is necessitated only because of the filing of an additional written statement, in which a contention is taken that the property belongs to the father of defendants 1 to 12 OPC 456/2017 2024:KER:78090 5 and, on his death, devolved on their mother. A perusal of the amendment application would show that the said amendment is required for property adjudication of the suit and will not take away any admission. Therefore, the order passed by the trial court in I.A. No.2 of 2017 in O.S. No.246 of 2012 dismissing the application is set aside, and the petition for amendment is allowed. The petitioner is permitted to carry out the amendment, and respondent Nos.1 to 5 are permitted to file additional written statements based on the amended plaint. Since the suit is of the year 2012, the trial court is directed to expedite the disposal, as expeditiously as possible and at any rate, within a period of 6 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
The O.P.(C.) is disposed of.
Sd/-
BASANT BALAJI JUDGE dl/ 13 OPC 456/2017 2024:KER:78090 APPENDIX OF OP(C) 456/2017 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P10 TRUE COPY OF THE PARTITION DEED NO. 1423/1113 ME DATED 18TH DHANU 1113 ME ALONG WITH READABLE COPY Exhibit P11 THE TRUE COPY OF THE PARTITION DEED NO 1881/51 DATED 21/5/1951 Exhibit P12 TRUE COPY OF THE PARTITION DEED NUMBER 2500/86 DATED 20TH SEPTEMBER 1986 Exhibit P13 THE TRUE COPY OF THE EXTRACT OF THE BASIC TAX REGISTER ISSUED BY VILLAGE OFFICER VALLIKKUNAM Exhibit P14 THE TRUE COPY OF THE SETTLEMENT REGISTER ISSUED BY ADDITIONAL TAHSILDAR MAVELIKKARA Exhibit P15 THE TRUE COPY OF THE LAND REGISTER ISSUED BY TECHNICAL ASS. SURVEY OFFICE THIRUVANTHAPURAM Exhibit P16 THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION NO. MSA 152/04 FATED 28/10/2004 Exhibit P17 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 30/3/05 OBTAINED UNDER THE RTI ACT Exhibit P18 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 30/3/2005 OBTAINED UNDER THE RTI ACT Exhibit P19 TRUE COPY OF THE INTIMATION ISSUED UNDER CERTIFICATE OF POSTING BY SURVEY SUPERINTENDENT HARIPPAD Exhibit P20 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION NO. MSAF 59/1999 DATED 22/4/99 Exhibit P21 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC NO 1016/2018 DATED 1/8/2018 Exhibit P22 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER CHENGANNOOR DATED 25/2/2009 EXHIBIT P9 COPY OF THE ORDER IN IA NO.2/2017. 14 OPC 456/2017
2024:KER:78090 EXHIBIT P8 COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE 1ST DEFENDANT. EXHIBIT P7 COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED THE DEFENDANT.
EXHIBIT P6 COPY OF THE IA NO.2/2017.
EXHIBIT P5 COPY OF THE ADDL WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY THE
4TH DEFENDANT.
EXHIBIT P4 COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN O.P(C) NO.2069/2016.
EXHIBIT P3 COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY THE SECOND
RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P2 COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY DEFENDENTS
ONE, THREE AND FIVE.
EXHIBIT P1 A COPY OF THE PLAINT IN OS:NO: 246/2012.