Ayyappaswami Temple vs M.R.Nandakumar on 26 July, 2011

[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Kerala High Court

Ayyappaswami Temple vs M.R.Nandakumar on 26 July, 2011

Both the Second Appeals are connected and are filed against the common judgment rendered by the Additional District Judge, North Paravur in A.S. Nos.218/2004 and 219/2004. W.P.(C) No.10870/2013 is filed by the petitioner challenging Ext.P11 order passed by the Travancore Devaswom Board. Since common questions have arisen for consideration, all these matters are disposed of together.

2. We will first come to the facts relevant for the disposal of R.S.A.Nos.532/2012 and 645/2012.

3. Three suits, viz. O.S. Nos.255/2001, 318/2003 and 319/2003 have been jointly tried and disposed of by the Additional Sub Judge, North Paravur by judgment dated 7.9.2004. All the suits related to the claims of respective plaintiffs for conduct of 'Erumeli Pettathullal' during the Mandalam-Makaravilakku festival. The plaintiffs in the three suits claimed that they are representing the Alangad Yogam and are entitled to perform RSA Nos.532/2012 & 645/2012 & W.P.(C) No.10870/2013 -2- the Sabarimala pilgrimage representing the various devotees. The trial court dismissed O.S.Nos.255/2001 and 319/2003 and partly allowed O.S. No.318/2003. In O.S. No.318/2003 a decree was passed restraining the defendants and their agents by way of permanent prohibitory injunction from making collection in the name of the first plaintiff Yogam to conduct 'Erumeli Pettathullal' and other rituals and observances of Pamba and Sannidhanam during Makaravilakku festival in the name of the plaintiff Yogam.

4. There was no appeal from the decree and judgment in O.S.Nos.255/2001. In the common judgment rendered by the Additional District Court, A.S. No.219/2004 was allowed which was filed by the defendants in O.S. No.318/2003. The decree and judgment passed in O.S. No.318/2003 stood set aside and consequently the suit was dismissed. The decree and judgment in O.S. No.319/2003 was confirmed and A.S. No.218/2004 filed by the plaintiffs in that suit also was dismissed. Thus, the appellants in R.S.A. No.532/2012 are the plaintiffs in O.S. No.319/2003 and the appellants in R.S.A.No.645/2012 are the plaintiffs in O.S. NO.318/2003.

RSA Nos.532/2012 & 645/2012 & W.P.(C) No.10870/2013 -3-

5. W.P.(C) No.10870/2013 is filed by the first appellant in R.S.A. No.645/2012.

6. The history of the litigation is the following: Two Ayyappa devotees approached this Court by filing C.M.P.No.3020/2000 to declare that the real Alangad Yogam (Sanghom) is represented by them who are the residents of Alangad Grama Panchayath; and to direct respondents 1 and 2 therein to conduct an enquiry into the dispute that has arisen with respect to the Alangad Sanghom. By order dated 13.12.2000 a Division Bench of this Court held that the dispute will have to be resolved by a competent court of law, viz. a civil court. It was also directed that till then, during the festivals, the Pettathullal shall be led by the members of Alangad Yogam Sabarimala Swami Bhakthajana Sanghom. It is thereafter, the suits were filed.

7. In O.S. No.318/2003, the main prayer was to grant a decree for permanent prohibitory injunction and a mandatory injunction against the defendants. The first plaintiff is a registered association represented by the Periyon and plaintiffs 2 and 3 are two delegates claiming to be representing the Yogam. Going by the contentions raised by the plaintiffs therein, the RSA Nos.532/2012 & 645/2012 & W.P.(C) No.10870/2013 -4- members of Alangad Yogam were hailing from north of Muvattupuzha. Lord Ayyappa organised two battalions of warriors known as Ambalappuzha and Alangad Yogams for the purpose of waging war against Udayanan and Maravas. After accomplishing the 'Avathara lakshya', Lord Ayyappa proceeded towards 'Sabari peetom' for attaining 'Moksha' and Panthalam Raja permitted the Ambalapuzha Yogam to lead the Lord along with Vavar and Alangad Yogam to follow him to the destination. The help of Ambalapuzha and Alangad Yogam were sought by Panthalam Raja to assist him in the war at the time of its preparation. The then Alangad Raja convened a meeting of the local chieftains of his provinces at the banks of river Periyar precisely known as 'Alumkkattil' and later came to be known as Alangad Yogam. The Sanghom was led by the 'karanavan' of Manjapra Ambadath family and they rendered aid to Lord Ayyappa and later the members of Ambadath family led the disciples of Lord Ayyappa in their pilgrimage to Sabarimala during 'Makaravilakku season which started from time immemorial. Various rituals in connection with the pilgrimage were being undertaken by them under the leadership of Periyon from Ambadath family. It was averred that one Kesavapillai, a former Periyon was blessed RSA Nos.532/2012 & 645/2012 & W.P.(C) No.10870/2013 -5- by Lord Ayyappa by giving him 'darsan' as well as 'bhasmasanchi' and 'mudra vadi' which are kept in the family. He was followed by his various successors and at the time of filing of the suit Shri Thankappan Menon was the Periyon. After the Travancore Devaswom Board came into existence, the Board also has been granting various benefits during the period one Shri Krishnan Nair was acting as Periyon. The plaintiffs association was registered during 1983 under the provisions of Travancore Cochin Literary, Scientific and Charitable Societies Registration Act. The first plaintiff has been functioning as Periyon for the last 19 years. It is having 60 units and the defendants belong to Kuttippuzha and Kunnukara units. For the previous three years, they have been trying to misuse their position and the request of the plaintiffs Yogam to them to return the 'thiruvabharanam' which belonged to the Alangad Yogam, was not adhered to. They also disputed the right of the first plaintiff. Even though notice was issued demanding return of 'kodi', 'chilambu', idols, churika, etc. belonging to the Yogam, the same were not returned. Accordingly, a permanent injunction has been sought along with a mandatory injunction, directing them to return the plaint schedule property to the first plaintiff. RSA Nos.532/2012 & 645/2012 & W.P.(C) No.10870/2013 -6-

8. The defendants resisted the claim of the plaintiffs raising various contentions including that the plaintiffs have no right to represent the real Alangad Yogam. It was contended that Ambadath Krishnan Nair who was the Periyon, had shifted his residence to Manjapra 25 years back and formed an association there.

9. The plaintiffs in O.S.No.319/2003 who are also defendants in O.S. No.318/2003, contended that they are representing Alangad Yogam at present and from time immemorial onwards. The Yogamis having its office at Kunnukara and there are 201 live members in the Association. The erstwhile Alangad Rajyam takes in the present Alangad, Karumalloor, Kunnukara and Kadungallur Panchayats and the golaka and flag which are essential for the conduct of Pettathullal are in the possession of the plaintiffs and the said items are kept in the tharavadu Temple of the present President of the Yogam. One of the Periyons, viz. Shri Ambadath Krishnan Nair shifted his residence to Manjapra 20 years back and he along with defendants 3 to 5 got some disciples there and they were permitted to join the Pettathullal performed by the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs are claiming as real Alangad Yogam. The suit O.S.No.319/2003 was filed in a RSA Nos.532/2012 & 645/2012 & W.P.(C) No.10870/2013 -7- representative capacity, under Order I Rule 8 of C.P.C. They sought for a declaration that the plaintiffs Yogam is the real Alangad Yogam and plaintiffs 1 to 3 are the present representatives of the Yogam and that they are entitled to conduct Erumeli Pettathullal, Pamba vilakku and other rituals in connection with Makaravilakku festival. They also sought for a permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants from acquiring any special privilege at Sabarimala during the Makaravilakku eve or conducting special poojas, petta, pamba vilakku, etc. in connection with the Makaravilakku festival and not to exhibit the flag, golaka, etc. newly made in those rituals and not to conduct meetings and declaration in the name of Alangad Yogam.

10. The defendants in O.S. No.319/2013 include the plaintiffs in O.S. Nos.255/2001 and 318/2003, the Travancore Devaswom Board and its Commissioner. In the written statement the defendants have pleaded their case and opposed the claims of the plaintiffs in O.S. No.319/2013.

11. Evidence was let in by the respective parties and O.S. No.255/2001 was treated as the leading case. The trial court found, mainly, that no documentary evidence has been produced on the side of the RSA Nos.532/2012 & 645/2012 & W.P.(C) No.10870/2013 -8- plaintiffs in O.S. Nos.255/2001 and 319/2003 substantiating their case that they represent the Alangad Yogam and there is only assertion of witnesses. In para 23, it was found that the plaintiffs in O.S. No.255/2001 could not substantiate their claim that only the residents of Alangad Grama Panchayat are entitled to represent Alangad Yogam. In para 24, it was observed while considering the pleas of the plaintiffs in O.S. No.3192003 that no evidence is forthcoming to prove that the erstwhile Alangad Rajyam takes in only Alangad, Karumalloor, Kunnukara and Kadungallur Panchayats. The trial court ultimately found that the plaintiffs in O.S. No.255/2001 and 319/2003 have failed to establish any legal right in their favour.

12. While considering issue No.1 in O.S. No.318/2003, it was found that the evidence undoubtedly established that Shri Krishnan Nair was the Periyon of the Sanghom and he had been leading Erumeli Pettathullal on behalf of the Alangad Sanghom for 48 years. It was found that though the residents of Alangad Rajyam were having the right to conduct Pettathullal and other rituals at Sabarimala, the right to lead them is vested in the Periyon of the Sanghom, as is clear from the evidence tendered in O.S. No.318/2003 and there was no protest from other factions for years and the RSA Nos.532/2012 & 645/2012 & W.P.(C) No.10870/2013 -9- present dispute arose only from 2000 AD. Therefore, the plaintiffs were found entitled to get a permanent prohibitory injunction.

13. The lower appellate court, while considering the appeal filed against the decree in O.S. No.318/2003, considered various aspects. One of the arguments raised was the lack of permission under Order I Rule 8 C.P.C. It was also noted that going by Section 9 of the Travancore Cochin Literary, Scientific and Charitable Societies Registration Act, the suit can be only filed by the President, Chairman, Principal Secretary or Trustee of the society or such person appointed by the governing body for the occasion, which is not satisfied in that case. It was found by the lower appellate court that the President, Secretary, Chairman or trustee of the plaintiff association are not parties to the suit and the minutes have not been produced. The court also found that the memorandum of association and the rules of the society have also not been produced. Thus, it was concluded that absolutely there is no available record to show whether the plaintiffs in that suit are entitled to represent the first plaintiff association. It was found that the association was registered only in 1983 and therefore without perusing the memorandum of association, the membership register RSA Nos.532/2012 & 645/2012 & W.P.(C) No.10870/2013 -10- and the rules of the first plaintiff association, it is not able to find out what was the object behind the registration of the first plaintiff in 1983, especially in view of the fact that Alangad Yogamwas functioning smoothly for more than 900 years without any registration. There is no evidence before the court to show how many members are present in the first plaintiff association. In the evidence of D.W.1, Shri M.R. Rajappan Nair who is the second plaintiff in O.S. NO.318/2003 he admitted that the members of the Alangad Yogam are not determinable. The contention in O.S. No.318/2003 that the residents north of Muvattupuzha are included in Alangad Yogam and they are not determinate, was also referred to and it was found that the action of a registered society is binding only on its members. Finally, it was concluded that there is no reliable evidence available before the court to show that plaintiffs 1 to 3 are having authority to represent the first plaintiff association as per Section 9 of the Travancore-Cochin Literary, Scientific and Charitable Societies Registration Act and that in such a contingency a suit filed without obtaining permission under Order I Rule 8 C.P.C. is not maintainable, as the plaintiffs seek to advance the right of an indeterminable group of persons, i.e. Alangad Yogam. RSA Nos.532/2012 & 645/2012 & W.P.(C) No.10870/2013 -11-

14. The contention raised on behalf of the appellants before the appellate court that Manjapra was not part of former Alangad Yogam, was rejected. In that context, the court relied upon the details from two books, viz. (i) Akhila Vijnana Kosam Volume I, page 542 in which it is stated that in "Alangad Rajyam", places like Alangad, Ayirur, Chengamanadu, Kothakulangara, Manjapra and Parakkadavu were included; and (ii) 'A Survey of Kerala History' by Shri A. Sreedhara Menon in which it is stated in page 197 that Alangad Principality comprised villages as Alangad, Ayirur, Chengamanad, Kothakulangara, Manjapra, etc. and extended over the forest regions skirting the river Periyar on the east upto Malayattur. It was held in para 15 that the privilege was sanctioned to Alangad Yogam and not to Shri Ambadathu Krishnan Nair, by the Devaswom Board. The Appellate Court took the view that the plaintiffs in O.S.No.318/2003 are trying to confine Alangad Yogam to Manjapra whereas the Panthalam Raja had conferred special privilege to Alangad Yogam who were members of erstwhile Alangad Rajyam. It was held that without incorporating the entire members of Alangad Yogam nobody can claim the special privileges conferred to Alangad Yogam. The appellate court finally concluded that RSA Nos.532/2012 & 645/2012 & W.P.(C) No.10870/2013 -12- since the dispute is in respect of the right of a particular group of people, i.e. Alangad Yogam, a suit for injunction simplicitor without a prayer for declaration is not sufficient to settle the dispute and the evidence available before the court is not sufficient to hold that the plaintiffs in O.S. No.318/2003 are the real Alangad Yogam and they are entitled to deal with the privileges assigned to Alangad Yogam and that the suit was accordingly held as not maintainable.

15. While considering the reliefs sought for by the plaintiffs in O.S. No.319/2003, the lower appellate court in para 20, was of the view that the plaintiffs have not produced any documents in respect of the plaintiffs association including the minutes book. After referring to the documentary evidence, Ext.B2 and the oral evidence of DW.8 as well as the oral evidence of D.Ws.3 and 4 it was held that the golaka and kodi are not essential for Pettathullal but they are used only as a rhetorical device. In the light of the fact that Alangad Principality comprised different villages, it was held that the case put forward by the plaintiffs that Alangad Yogam is now confined to the Kunnukara people is not believable and accordingly it was found that the plaintiffs in O.S. No.319/2003, viz. the appellants before RSA Nos.532/2012 & 645/2012 & W.P.(C) No.10870/2013 -13- the lower appellate court in both the appeals, are not the real Alangad Yogam and they are having the real authority to represent Alangad Yogam. All the issues were found against the appellants/plaintiffs in O.S. No.319/2003. Accordingly, the lower appellate court dismissed O.S. No.318/2003 and upheld the dismissal of O.S. No.319/2003.

16. Before us, Shri S. Sreekumar, learned Senior Counsel appeared and argued for the appellants in R.S.A. No.645/2012 and W.P.(C) No.10870/2013 and Shri T. Krishnanunni, learned Senior Counsel appeared for the appellants in R.S.A.No.532/2012 and we also heard learned counsel Shri P.B. Krishnan appearing for the first respondent in R.S.A. No.532/2012 and Shri V. Krishna Menon, learned Standing Counsel for the Board and Shri Lakshmi Narayanan and Shri Abhilash Akbar learned counsel appearing for the impleading petitioners in W.P.(C) No.10870/2013.

17. Shri S. Sreekumar, learned Senior Counsel submitted that the view taken by the lower appellate court is not correct. It is submitted that the permission under Order I Rule 8 C.P.C., even if absent in O.S. No.318/2003, the suit is maintainable. On the merits of the matter, it is submitted that since a senior family member from Ambadathu family has RSA Nos.532/2012 & 645/2012 & W.P.(C) No.10870/2013 -14- been leading the Pettathullal, the said aspect should have been accepted. It is submitted that this Court also in the order passed in C.M.P.No.3020/2000 produced as Ext.P1 in W.P.(C) NO.10870/2013 while making the interim arrangement, has accepted the said plea and on the basis of the various interim orders passed from time to time which have been produced as Exts.P4, P5, P7 as well as Ext.P10 judgment in W.P.(C) No.885/2013, the appellants, Alangad Yogam Sabarimala Ayyappa Swami Temple was allowed to lead Pettathullal and all the others were allowed to join the same.

18. In that context, learned Senior Counsel relied upon Ext.P6 proceedings of the Board produced in W.P.(C) No.10870/2013, addressed to Ambadathu Krishnan Nair wherein mention has been made about the privileges conferred to Alangad Yogam. It is submitted that during the period of Shri Krishnan Nair, various benefits have been conferred by the Board. Learned Senior Counsel therefore submitted that the plaintiffs in O.S. No.318/2003 who are the appellants in R.S.A. No.645/2012 are entitled for the injunction as prayed for and the finding by the lower appellate court that the said suit is not maintainable, is not correct. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that the bar under the provisions of Section 9 of RSA Nos.532/2012 & 645/2012 & W.P.(C) No.10870/2013 -15- the Travancore Cochin Literary, Scientific and Charitable Societies Registration Act will not come as far as the maintainability of the suit is concerned. The special general body has authorised the first plaintiff to file the suit and the society is represented by the Periyon itself.

19. Shri S. Sreekumar, learned Senior Counsel submitted, by referring to the relevant pages of History books that it is a historically established fact that Manjapra is part of former Alangad Principality and therefore the plea raised by the other appellant that merely because the first appellant Society is registered with Manjapra as its office, the rights of the people to represent Alangad Rajyam cannot be denied. It is submitted, by referring to the historical aspects, that Alangad Yogam was conferred benefits by Panthalam Raja and various benefits in respect of Pettathullal were being enjoyed throughout.

20. Shri T. Krishnanunni, learned Senior Counsel submitted that the suit O.S. No.318/2003 is not maintainable, as what is sought for is only a permanent injunction. Since the plaintiffs therein are seeking a relief based on the rights of an indeterminable group, viz. the people representing Alangad Yogam, in the absence of seeking a relief by way of declaration the RSA Nos.532/2012 & 645/2012 & W.P.(C) No.10870/2013 -16- suit is not maintainable and it is submitted that the view of the appellate court in that regard is perfectly justified. It is also submitted that as far as O.S. No.319/2003 is concerned, Order I Rule 8 publication was effected also.

21. Shri P.B. Krishnan, learned counsel submitted that the appellants in both the appeals are not entitled for any reliefs, as the suits have not been properly filed. It is submitted that the societies registered are confined to certain areas of erstwhile Alangad Principality alone and they are not representing the entire devotees who are from various places forming part of the former Alangad Principality. It is submitted that rights have been conferred by Panthalam Raja to all the devotees from the said area and the attempt to confine it to certain areas alone, cannot be supported. It is submitted that the suits filed without seeking a declaration to establish the rights and claiming it for the entire devotees of Alangad Yogam, cannot be maintainable, as rightly found by the lower appellate court.

22. We heard learned Standing Counsel for the Board who submitted that various orders have been passed by this Court from time to time for the peaceful conduct of Pettathullal and the Board was unable to decide the RSA Nos.532/2012 & 645/2012 & W.P.(C) No.10870/2013 -17- dispute between the various parties and has been expecting a resolution of the dispute in the civil suits.

23. Shri Lakshmi Narayanan, learned counsel appearing for the additional 10th respondent in the writ petition submitted that the said respondent is also an organisation representing Alangad Yogam. It is also submitted that the rights of the entire devotees of Alangad Yogam will have to be respected.

24. As far as O.S. No.318/2003 is concerned, it is evident that the plaintiffs have not filed the suit in a representative capacity and the publication under Order I Rule 8 C.P.C. has not been made also, after getting permission.

25. The principal question will revolve round the historical aspects and it is an admitted fact that "Alangad Yogam" was conferred the various privileges by Panthalam Raja which was being enjoyed from time immemorial. In that context, going by the said historical aspects, it can be safely concluded that the areas which formed Alangad Principality and the Ayyappa devotees from those areas have got the right to participate in the Pettathullal and to enjoy the privileges and benefits. It cannot be confined RSA Nos.532/2012 & 645/2012 & W.P.(C) No.10870/2013 -18- to any of the villages or karas or panchayats of that area. The rights of those devotees were being enjoyed, admittedly going by the contentions of the parties, for more than 900 years. Therefore, the same will have to be protected for future years also and it cannot be limited to such areas of units or associations which represent only few members.

26. As far as the details of the areas forming the Alangad Principality are concerned, we will straightaway refer to page 197 of the book titled as "A Survey of Kerala History" wherein under the heading "Alangad" the following details have been given:

"Alangad Alangad (Mangat) was a small principality ruled by a Samanta chief. Originally it belonged to one Mangat Kaimal and hence the kingdom came to be called Mangat. The ruler was known as Muteripad. The Alangad principality comprised such villages as Alangad, Ayrur, Chengamanad, Kotakulangara, Manjapra etc. and extended over the forest regions skirting the river Periyar on the east up to Malayattur. Along with Purakkad, Parur and Vadakkumkur, the principality of Alangad was one of the four pillars of the Cochin kingdom in its wars with other chiefs. Alangad acknowledged the supremacy of Travancore and it was RSA Nos.532/2012 & 645/2012 & W.P.(C) No.10870/2013 -19- formally annexed to that State in 1764."

It will show that Alangad Principality comprised such villages as Alangad, Ayirur, Chengamanad, Kothakulangara, Manjapra etc. and extended over the forest regions skirting the river Periyar on the east upto Malayattur. It was formally annexed to Travancore in the year 1764. In the Travancore State Manuel by Shri V. Nagam Aiya Volume III, at page 575, the following details have been given under the heading "Alangad":

"Alangad.-- One of the northernmost Taluqs of Travancore, Kottayam Division. Area 99.87 square miles. Population 73,000; subdivided into 6 Proverties; bounded on the north by the Cochin State, on the east by Cochin and Kunnatnad south by Kunnatnad and on the west by the Parur Taluq. The soil is productive. Sugar is largely manufactured here. The name Alangad probably indicates its extensive forest area in olden days. The Taluq is irrigated by the Alwaye river.

The chief places are:--1. Alangad. 2. Manjali with its ruined Syrian church where a fair is held annually. 3. Alwaye. 4. Angamali a populous and commercial village now a railway station. 5. Chengamanad. 6. Parakkadavu. 7. Kotakulangara a large Nayar village.

The chief places have also thus been stated therein. RSA Nos.532/2012 & 645/2012 & W.P.(C) No.10870/2013 -20-

27. In the book titled as "History of Kerala" by Shri K.P. Padmanabha Menon while referring to various principalities, mention is made about Alangad at pages 124 and 125 under the heading "Mangatti". We extract the same as under:

"35. Mangatti. This was the principality of Alangad, governed by a Samantar chief and was situated on the side of the Periyar river at Alwaye. His rule extended over the woody tracts skirting the river on the east up to Malayattur. It comprises the modern villages of Alangad, Ayrur, Chengamanad, Kotakulangara, Mannapara and a portion of the village of Parakkadavu. The state surrendered itself and acknowledged the supremacy of Travancore in the year 1764, and the Raja is now a pensioner. In the treaty of surrender, the boundaries of the state are set forth as follows:-- To the west of Mannappara, to the north of Varappula, to the east of Tattampilli and to the south of Kochukadavu."

28. Alangad Principality therefore was comprised of places like Alangad, Ayirur, Chengamanad, Kothakulangara, Manjapra and Parakkadavu. In the light of the above historical aspects as recorded in the authentic books referred to above, a conclusion safely can be drawn about the places included in Alangad Yogam. Therefore, when we are considering RSA Nos.532/2012 & 645/2012 & W.P.(C) No.10870/2013 -21- the issue herein, especially with regard to the rights of Alangad Yogam, the territory comprised in these places will have its own importance. Hence, it cannot be confined to any one of the villages or even to the small places like karas, etc. The same will deprive the devotees who are entitled to have their right to participate in the Pettathullal and to enjoy the other benefits in connection with the Makaravilakku festival. Therefore, when we are approaching the questions raised in these cases, we will have to keep in mind the rights of these indeterminate devotees who will form the Alangad Yogam and as we have already referred to the findings in the judgment of the lower appellate court, the lower appellate court was of the view that the question to be determined is who is the real Alangad Yogam.

29. As far as O.S. No.318/2003 is concerned, it is a simple suit for injunction without any declaration being sought. There is no publication under Order I Rule 8 C.P.C. also. Learned Senior Counsel for the plaintiffs in that suit, Shri S. Sreekumar submitted that the plaintiffs in O.S. No.319/2003 have moved an application under Order I Rule 8 C.P.C. which was allowed by the court, which will serve the purpose. We have verified I.A. No.784/2002 filed in O.S. No.319/2003. The description of the first RSA Nos.532/2012 & 645/2012 & W.P.(C) No.10870/2013 -22- plaintiff in that suit is the following:

"Kunnukara Village, Vayalkarayil Sabarimala Ayyappa Swami Kshethram, represented by its President Chennattu Puthenveettil C.P. Purushothaman Nair, S/o.Ammanath Parameswaran Nair."

In para 2 of the affidavit, it is stated that the first plaintiff is functioning within Kunnukara and according to the plaintiffs, Alangad Desom will include only Alangad, Karumallur, Kunnukara and Kadungallur Panchayats. We have already found that Alangad Yogam comprises of different places like Alangad, Ayrur, Chengamanad, Kothakulangara, Manjapra, etc. Therefore, the publication under Order I Rule 8 C.P.C. effected by the plaintiffs in O.S. No.319/2003 cannot hold good, as the plaintiffs have limited the area of Alangad Yogam to certain places alone and confined to limited numbers and hence such publication cannot also be of any advantage to the plaintiffs in O.S. No.318/2003. Therefore, the suits O.S.Nos.318/2003 and 319/2003 are not at all comprehensive to consider the various aspects concerning the rights of the devotees of Alangad Yogam.

30. While we are considering the larger question, i.e. with regard to the rights of devotees who form the "Alangad Yogam" from the places RSA Nos.532/2012 & 645/2012 & W.P.(C) No.10870/2013 -23- comprised within the former "Alangad Rajyam", we are of the view that there should be a proper scheme framed, so as to take in all situations for enabling the indeterminate number of devotees to exercise their rights and enjoy the privileges in connection with Erumeli Pettathullal and pilgrimage to Sabarimala and to continue with the various poojas and other rites they are expected to perform in connection with the Makaravilakku festival. The requirement being the same, as the suits O.S. Nos.318/2003 and 319/2003 are not comprehensive enough, we will not be justified in granting any reliefs in these appeals to the appellants. Therefore, all the issues will have to be left open for consideration in appropriate suits which may have to be filed comprehensively enough by the parties concerned or by others. The only option for this Court now, is to dismiss the suits leaving open the said remedy.

31. We make it clear that the findings by the lower appellate court will not operate as res judicata if any fresh suit is filed in the matter. The finding regarding the places included in the erstwhile Alangad Rajyam stands confirmed by us, in the light of the details available which we have already referred to, from the historical aspects.

RSA Nos.532/2012 & 645/2012 & W.P.(C) No.10870/2013 -24-

32. In that view of the matter, both the appeals are dismissed leaving open the remedy of the parties to the appeals or any other party, to approach the civil court to file appropriate comprehensive suits and after effecting publication on getting permission under Order I Rule 8 C.P.C.

33. Now we will come to the relief sought in W.P.(C) No.10870/2013. Both sides were heard in detail. Since a positive result is not forthcoming from the civil suits filed, appropriate arrangements will have to be made for the smooth conduct of the Pettathullal and to perform the poojas at Sabarimala by the Alangad Yogam. We heard learned Senior Counsel Shri S. Sreekumar, Shri T. Krishnanunni, learned Senior Counsel, Shri V. Krishna Menon, learned Standing Counsel for the Board, and Shri Lakshmi Narayanan and Shri Abhilsh Akbar, learned counsel appearing for the impleading petitioners in W.P.(C) No.10870/2013, on this aspect. We have considered the various orders passed by this Court which have been produced in the writ petition.

34. Ext.P1 is the order passed by the Division Bench in C.M.P.No.3020/2000 way back on 13.12.2000 and Ext.P2 is the order passed in R.P.No.594/2000 by the same Bench. The subsequent orders RSA Nos.532/2012 & 645/2012 & W.P.(C) No.10870/2013 -25- passed during the pendency of F.A.O.No.56/2008 have been produced as Exts.P4, P5 and P7. Ext.P10 is the order passed by the Division Bench in W.P.(C) No.885/2013 dated 10.1.2013 which governs the Mandalam - Makaravilakku season 2013.

35. What is objected to by the writ petitioner is Ext.P11 order passed by the Board. The same is a letter addressed to the Devaswom Commissioner, issued by the Secretary of the Board. After mentioning that the claim of Manjapra section has not been accepted by the Court, it is stated that the claims of Alangad Yogam is only to be recognised by the Board. The contention raised in the writ petition is that throughout from 2000 onwards the Sabarimala Swami Bhaktha Jana Sanghom represented by its Periyon, viz. a senior member of Ambadath family was allowed to lead Pettathullal by this Court as an interim measure.

36. As far as the historical aspects are concerned, it has come out in evidence in the civil suits also that Pettathullal was being led by the Periyons of Ambadath family. Mention is made about one Shri Kesava Pillai who was blessed by Lord Ayyappa itself, according to the pleadings in the writ petition and after his death mention has been made about various RSA Nos.532/2012 & 645/2012 & W.P.(C) No.10870/2013 -26- Periyons including one Shri Krishnan Nair. While passing the order Ext.P2, the Division Bench referred to various aspects and found that the affidavit fled by Shri Thankappan Menon is more preferable. It was noted that he has given the history which was happened for the past 20 years. But the Division Bench further verified that all the members of Sabarimala Swami Bhakthajana Sanghom as well as "Yogam" should be allowed to take part in the Erumeli Pettathullal and the parties should not give any room for any altercation or dispute etc. It was also directed that if any faction of the members wants the Pettathullal to be performed differently, they need not join the main team.

37. Therefore, the main team was allowed to be led by Sabarimala Swami Bhakthajana Sanghom after encompassing all the devotees from the Alangad Yogam. The order Ext.P4 passed in F.A.O.No.56/2008 was in the year 2008 and Ext.P5 order is one passed in the year 2009. It is noted in Ext.P5 order that the order Ext.P4 had worked out peacefully in that year and the very same order will continue for the year 2009 also. In Ext.P7 order passed in the year 2010 after noticing the orders Exts.P4 and P5, the very same order was continued and it was directed that the things are done RSA Nos.532/2012 & 645/2012 & W.P.(C) No.10870/2013 -27- properly. The last of the orders, viz. Ext.P10 judgment in W.P.(C) No.885/2013 has recorded in para 3, para 14 of the judgment in A.S.Nos.218/2004 and 219/2004. It is in that paragraph the lower appellate court considered in detail the areas comprised in former Alangad Rajyam by referring to the Book titled "A Survey of Kerala History" by Shri A. Sreedhara Menon. After noticing the findings, the Division Bench directed that the persons belonging to and having origin referable to the aforesaid areas, viz. villages like Alangad, Ayirur, Chengamanadu, Kothakulangara, Manjapra, etc. would alone be permitted to participate in the Pettalthullal. It was also recorded that the parties who can legitimately be part of the Pettathullal, should be recognised.

38. After considering various aspects as noted above, we pass the following order:

i) Pettathullal at Erumeli will be led by the petitioner, viz.

Sabarimala Swami Bhaktajana Sanghom through the Periyon from Ambadath family;

ii) All the devotees who are desirous to join Pettathullal and to have Darsan at Sabarimala from the entire Alangad desom as found by us RSA Nos.532/2012 & 645/2012 & W.P.(C) No.10870/2013 -28- in para.28 above, will be allowed to join the petitioner. They will be allowed to take part in all the religious functions including the visit to the Temples concerned and other poojas and religious functions at Sabarimala and other places like Pamba, etc. All the parties herein and other organisations will co-operate with the same;

iii) The Travancore Devaswom Board is directed to issue appropriate directions in the matter through the officers concerned, in terms of the spirit of this order, to enable the smooth conduct of Pettathullal by Alangad Yogam;

iv) We direct the Board and the Devaswom Commissioner to issue appropriate directions to the local officers at Erumeli, Pamba and Sabarimala for the smooth compliance of the directions as above. It was suggested by the learned Senior Counsel, Shri S. Sreekumar that this Court can direct the issuance of badges to the devotees. We need only direct that opportunity will not be denied to any willing devotees who are from the areas mentioned above and in case there occurs any dispute regarding the identity of anybody, the Devaswom Officer concerned at Erumeli will resolve the dispute by referring to the documents, if any, made RSA Nos.532/2012 & 645/2012 & W.P.(C) No.10870/2013 -29- available by such devotees. The Board will continue to allow all the privileges hitherto enjoyed by the Alangad Yogam during Pettathullal as well as the privileges at Pamba and Sabarimala and other places.

We make it clear that the above order will have application for the present year and in future till a proper scheme is framed by the civil court. Ext.P11 in the writ petition is quashed.

The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs.

(T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE) (B. KEMAL PASHA, JUDGE) kav/

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Kerala High Court