Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3
CASE NO.:
Appeal (civil) 4721 of 1994
PETITIONER:
TRICHERUMANA @ KOTTIYOOR DEVASWOM & ORS.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
PRESIDENT, KOTTIYOOR PERUMAL SEVA & ORS.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 06/09/2001
BENCH:
S. Rajendra Babu & Shivaraj V. Patil
JUDGMENT:
[With C.A.Nos.4722-4723/1994]
J U D G M E N T
RAJENDRA BABU, J. :
A scheme framed in respect of the administration of the
Tricherumana @ Kottiyoor Devaswom, appellant No.1 herein, was the
subject matter of challenge before the High Court in Writ Petition
No.1066/53. By an order made on 5.8.1954, the learned Single Judge
before whom the writ petition came up allowed the same and set aside
the entire scheme. The matter was carried in appeal.
The Division Bench of the High Court of Madras, on 17.10.1955,
disagreed with the learned Single Judge that no part of the scheme can
be salvaged and the whole of it must be set aside. The Division Bench of
the High Court observed that so long as the scheme is necessary even
radical alterations of the scheme can be made by modification of the
original scheme and the parties submitted an agreed scheme for
consideration of the High Court. The Division Bench, after considering
the same, set aside the order of the learned Single Judge and directed
the draft scheme, which was attached to that order, would come into
force in supersession of the scheme framed by the District Judge of
North Malabar in O.P.No.2/49. Subsequently certain amendments were
made to that scheme in the matter of (i) nomination of either hereditary
or non-hereditary trustee as the Chairman of the Board of Trustees, (ii)
the powers of the Chairman of the Board of Trustees to spend the funds
of the Trust and (iii) power of the Commissioner to appoint non-
hereditary trustees with the hereditary trustees. That scheme was in
vogue for quite some time.
Thereafter, a suit was filed in O.S.No.489/69 by the Trustees of the
appellant No.1 for permanent injunction against Kottiyur Perumal Seva
Sangam and others and obtained an injunction against the President
and the Secretary of the Seva Sangam and their agents from trespassing
into the property of appellant No.1. O.P. No. 5/75 was filed by the
Commissisoner of charitable and religious endowments before the Sub-
Court, Tellicherry to amend the existing scheme resulting in taking away
the powers of the hereditary trustees. O.P.No.153/76 was filed by the
President of the Kottiyur Perumal Seva Sangam for similar relief. The
Trial Court on consideration of the entire matter dismissed the said
petitions and the suit. Thereafter, appeals in M.F.A. Nos. 74/88, 208/88
and 923/88 were preferred before the High Court in the year 1987. The
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3
High Court decided all these matters together by an order made on
6.4.1994. The High Court noticed that the schemes that have been
framed earlier had become out-dated and inadequate to cater to the
present situation and after considering the fact that large number of
worshippers had made alternative arrangements by holding a meeting on
11.10.1964 at Calicut which was attended by several Madhadhipathies
when the Kottiyur Perumal Seva Sangam was formed and registered and
finding that the existing scheme is not sufficient to protect the interests
of appellant No.1 directed modification of the same by inserting several
clauses and in particular in relation to non-hereditary trustees.
Special leave petitions were preferred before this Court against that
order of the High Court. This Court made an interim order on 12.7.1994
to the following effect:
Leave granted. Issue notice on the stay application. Meanwhile,
all the actions taken by the new Board will be subject to the final
outcome of these appeals.
Subsequently on 26.9.1994, this Court made the following interim
order:
The interim order made earlier shall continue with the addition
that the High Court would review the action taken by the Board
every six months. The stay applications are disposed of
accordingly.
Sri P.Krishnamurthi, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the
appellants, contended that when the High Court had not upset the
findings recorded by the Trial Court on various complaints made against
the hereditary trustees, there is no occasion for the High Court to have
altered the scheme and he pointed out that there have been good deal of
litigation between the appellants and Sri Kottiyur Perumal Seva Sangam
and, therefore, it was inappropriate for the High Court to have nominated
the President and the Secretary of Sri Kottiyur Perumal Seva Sangam as
the Trustees.
Sri G.Vishwanatha Iyer, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the
respondents, submitted that this Court not having granted stay of the
impugned order made by the High Court, the scheme as modified by the
High Court has been in operation from 1994 and it would not be proper
for us to set aside that scheme and interfere with the orders of the High
Court so as to modify the scheme now framed by it or even to direct the
High Court to frame another scheme. In support of this contention, he
relied upon the decision of this Court in Taherakhatoon (D) by LRs. Vs.
Salambin Mohammad, 1999(1) SCALE 634.
Sri Krishnamurthi, learned Senior Advocate, very strongly
contended that the view taken by the High Court cannot be justified and
we also prima facie thought there was force in his submission. However,
on deeper consideration, we find that it may not be appropriate for us to
interfere with the order of the High Court modifying the scheme which is
now in force particularly when the same has been in force for more than
seven years now. Therefore, we decline to interfere with the order of the
High Court. However, we make it clear that it is open to either of the
parties or any other appropriate person, who can file a suit in relation to
the framing of the scheme, to move the High Court for modification of the
scheme framed by it from time to time if any difficulty is found in the
working of the scheme either in the matter of constitution of the Board of
Trustees or otherwise. We also make it clear that if the High Court finds
in respect of any application or petition that it is necessary to hold any
enquiry in the matter, it may transfer the entire matter to the
Subordinate Court for disposal or call for a finding.
With the aforesaid observations, these appeals stand disposed of
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3
accordingly. No costs.
...J.
[ S. RAJENDRA BABU ]
...J.
[ SHIVARAJ V. PATIL ]
SEPTEMBER 6, 2001.