Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

3. The petitioner adds that, in fact, the report of the Deputy Commissioner of Devaswom, namely Ext.P4, demonstrates that the post of 'Santhi' in the Temple in question WP(C).No.30015 OF 2019(B) is not covered by any 'Karanma' right and therefore, prays that said post be filled up only by persons like him in the Rank List.

4. Sri.Mohanakannan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, further submitted that, even though the factual circumstances are as above, when his client's complaint was assessed by the Board, it has issued Ext.P7, wherein, they have relied upon a partition deed of the 'Mullasseri Matam' to hold that 'Santhi' in post is covered by 'Karanma' right. Sri.Mohanakannan, argues that said order itself makes it clear that the Deputy Commissioner of Devaswom, after his enquiry, had found that no such right is available to the 'Mullasseri Matam' and further that the reliance on a partition deed by the Board in Ext.P7, in substantiation of the claim of the 'Mullasseri Matam' for 'Karanma' right over the post of 'Santhi', is irregular and contrary to Ext.P1 Rules framed under Section 28 of the Travancore - Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950 regarding 'Karanma' right.

6. In response, Sri.C.K.Pavithran, learned Standing Counsel for the Travancore Devaswom Board, submitted that Ext.P7 has only recognized the pre-existing 'Karanma' right in favour of 'Mullasseri Matam' and that this has not been declared for the first time through the said order. He pointed out that a member of the 'Mullasseri Matam', Sri.M.G.Sankara Narayana Potti, was the Melsanthi of Vettikkavala Devaswom and that he retired on 31.05.2016 on attaining the age of 56, after putting in more than two decades of service. He added that Sri.M.G.Sankara Narayana Potti, thereafter, continued up to 05.01.2019 on the strength of an interim order of this Court and that he, thereafter, nominated his son - the 6 th respondent, enforcing the 'Karanma' right of his family. The learned Standing Counsel submitted that the 5 th respondent - Sri.M.G.Sankara Narayana Potti, himself was appointed only on WP(C).No.30015 OF 2019(B) the strength of the 'Karanma' right and that no one had ever challenged this at any point of time, until the petitioner approached the Authorities for being appointed to the post in question.

7. Sri.Pavithran, then explained that, even the "M.N.Kesvan Nair Commission", which was constituted by the Board in the year 1982, had reported that the 'Melsanthi Lavanam" in Vettikkavala Devaswom of the Kottarakkara Group, is a 'Karanma' post and that 'Mullasseri Matam' enjoys such right. He concluded his submissions by saying that, in fact, a civil suit had been filed as early as in the year 1981, numbered as O.S.No.157/1981, before the Munsiff's Court, Kottarakara, wherein, the Secretary of the Board had filed an affidavit averring that 'Mullasseri Matam' enjoyed a 'Karanma' right in the Vettikkavala Devaswom. He submitted that therefore, merely because Ext.P7 refers to a partition deed, it would not be contrary to Ext.P1 Rules and that this document was only one of the relevant inputs noticed by the Board to reiterate that 'Mullasseri Matam' enjoyed 'Karanma' right, as well as the 'Santhi' of 'Vettikkavala Devaswom is concerned.

8. Sri.Arun Chandran, learned counsel appearing for WP(C).No.30015 OF 2019(B) respondents 5 and 6, submitted that a counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of his clients, wherein, it has been explained as to how 'Mullasseri Matam' had been enjoying the 'Karanma' right for generations past. He pointed out that, in the partition deed of the family dated 16.08.1969, the 'Karanma' right has not been partitioned, but that there is a covenant therein, that the family has the said right of 'Santhi' and that they have remitted Rs.250/- as security as early as in the year 1820. He contended that this does not mean that 'Karanma' right had been partitioned in any manner and thus asserted, that the allegations of the petitioner - that this covenant goes contrary to Ext.P1 Rules - has no legs to stand on.