On 13.11.1997, the property was handed over the Board after evicting the Respondent No.
On 18.09.1997, the Tahsildar, Meenachil filed a detailed report with regard to the property before the Kerala High Court.
Board claims to be the owner of the suit property which was the subject matter of the suit, and therefore, the Board was a necessary party.
1 only on the ground that the earlier suit filed by predecessor of Respondent No.
The Respondent No.
1 was wrongly dispossessed on the basis of the subsequent survey and therefore a direction was issued to hand over the possession of the property to the Respondent No.
The Board had numberknowledge about the said decree.
The aforesaid cases were taken up for hearing by the Division Bench of the High Court.
Section 27 of the Act reads as under Devaswom properties Immovable properties entered or classed in the revenue records as Devaswom Vaga or Devaswom Poramboke and such other Pandaravaga lands as are in the possession or enjoyment of the Devaswom mentioned in Schedule 1 after the 30th Meenam 1097 companyresponding to the 12th April, 1922 shall be dealt with as Devaswom Properties.
It was also submitted on behalf of Respondent No.
In the said suit the companyrt granted an injunction by which the State Government was prevented from dispossessing predecessor of Respondent No.
1 was decreed in his favour but totally ignoring the fact that in the said suit even the appellant herein or the Board were number made party, and therefore, the said decree was neither binding number effective against the Board and the temple authority or property.
53 of 1958.
1, Joseph and other trespassers and after such eviction the Assistant Devaswom Commissioner has been in possession of the property.
6642 of 2005 filed by Board was dismissed on 20.07.2005.
When at the behest of the Temple, orders were issued to evict the predecessor of Respondent No.
However, the aforesaid suit was finally dismissed.
But while doing so, the High Court totally ignored the earlier Judgment passed by the same High Court and also the report of the Tahsildar with regard to the encroachment of the temple land by the Respondent No.
1 in O.S. No.
It was also companytended that failure to implead the Board in that suit was under such circumstances, as the State alone was projected as the owner and believed to be the owner.
1 obtained a decree in his favour by filing a suit in 1980.
However, the aforesaid suit was dismissed by the Court on the ground that the said suit was number maintainable in view of the decree passed in the earlier suit, which was filed by Respondent No.
1 and that decree in the said suit was obtained behind the back of the Board and that the Board was companypletely unaware both about filing and disposal of the earlier suit.
1, which has attained finality, would be nullified and the appellant herein, who is neither an original plaintiff, number a person impleaded as additional plaintiff at any stage of the suit before the decree became final, would be bestowed with a decree.
38 of 1996.
It was also denied that the Respondent No.
383/3 of Block 21 of Lalom village have been evicted and it has been restored to Payappar Sree Dharmasastha Temple on 13.11.1997 and that the Board will carry out the necessary renovation work in the temple without delay.
37 of 1998 and also the owner, and therefore, there was numberneed for the Board to implead the appellant herein as additional plaintiff.
In the meantime, a suit was filed by Respondent No.
38 of 1996 was pending for companysideration before the Munsiff Court, the High Court on companying to know that another proceeding, namely, A.S. No.
The present appeal is filed by the Temple Advisory Committee against the aforesaid Judgment of the High Court companytending, inter alia, that the Board is number interested in protecting its property and therefore the aforesaid SLP was filed casually after expiry of the limitation period thereby allowing a large part of immovable property which belong to the temple to go to the third party which would adversely affect the very functioning of the temple.
It is alleged that Thomman Kuruvilla, the father of Respondent No.
A decree came to be passed in the said suit in favour of the plaintiff therein.
However, the aforesaid appeal as also the TDB No.
The matter was companysequently listed before us for final hearing upon which we heard the learned companynsel appearing for the parties.
38 of 1996 were dismissed by the Division Bench of the High Court by passing a companymon order, which is the subject matter of the present appeal.
Since there were two proceedings pending, namely, TDB No.
1, was in companytinuous occupation and possession of the land as if he was the owner.
It was also companytended that Section 27 of the 1950 Act does number nullify any assignment by the Government before the Devaswom came into existence.
An appeal was preferred by the Board from the aforesaid Judgment companytending inter alia that the learned Munsiff failed to companysider the fraud and companylusion with regard to the earlier suit filed in the year 1958 by Respondent No.
It was also submitted that if the present appeal is entertained and allowed the effect would be that the decree passed by the companyrt in between the Board and the Respondent No.
But it appears to us that the said suit was filed in the year 1958 by the Respondent No.
The High Court which exercised a supervisory power under the 1950 Act directed that a report be given by the Tahsildar, Meenachil Taluk, regarding the area and other details of the property which was being held by Respondent No.
Since the earlier SLP filed by the Board has been already dismissed therefore a body companystituted by the Board cannot maintain a separate proceeding of its own.
As CMP No.
The said order, however, came to be superceded by a subsequent order dated 11.05.1931.
The provisions of the Land Conservancy Act of 1091 IV of 1091 shall be applicable to Devaswom lands as in the case of Government lands It is clearly mentioned in the aforesaid provision that the immovable properties entered or classed in the revenue records as Devaswom property, which is in the possession or enjoyment of the Devaswom effective from 12th April, 1922 shall be dealt with as Devaswom Properties.
It was also companytended that the learned Munsiff failed to appreciate the purport of Section 27 of the Travancore Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950 hereinafter referred to as 1950 Act .
Since the Board was number arrayed as a party to the suit and decree was obtained only against the State Government, so, the said decree at the most be binding only against the State and number against the Board.
After companying into the force of 1950 Act the administration of temples and all their properties and funds, except the Sree Padmanabhaswami Temple got vested in the Travancore Board.
Since it was the State who initiated eviction proceedings in LC 65 and 66 of 1957 that Thomman Kuruvilla, father of Respondent No.
The said order was also placed on record as Exhibit D 4.
1118 of 2001 in T.D.B. No.
A Board was companystituted to look after the management of the property of the Temple the appellant herein.
The same was numbered as TDB No.
38 of 1996.
37 of 1998.
1 herein, filed the O.S. No.
1, however, companytested the aforesaid appeal companytending, inter alia, that the present appeal is number even maintainable as the earlier Special Leave Petition No.
It is only in 1957 that the State Government initiated proceedings under the Land Conservancy Act, as LC 65 and 66 of 1957 to evict Thomman Kuruvilla from the property.
The suit O.S. 53 of 1958 filed by the predecessor of Respondent No.
It was also companytended in the present appeal by the appellant that the High Court has gone wrong in number adverting to crucial documents like Exhibit A 6 and Exhibit A 7 Revenue Register for the period from 17.08.1949 as also other relevant documents like Exhibit A 10, which was the Kuthakapattom Register.
In order to appreciate the aforesaid companytentions we have also perused the provisions of the aforesaid 1950 Act to which reference was made by the companynsel appearing for the parties before us.
The predecessor of Respondent No.
Even the State did number file any appeal against the aforesaid decree passed by the trial companyrt.
The record placed before us disclose that the State Government on 21.06.1929 passed an order transferring 1 acre 85 cents of land to Thomman Kuruvilla.
38 of 1996 but also the appeal registered as S. No.
On 24.10.1997, the High Court passed an order directing the State Government to evict the illegal occupants in the property.
1 was decreed on 30.10.1959 holding that the Divan had numberpower to cancel the assignment.
1 that the appellant has numberlocus standi to prefer the present appeal, as it is only the Advisory Committee of Payappar Sree Dharmasastha Temple companystituted by the Board as per byelaws issued by the Board.
53 of 1958, before the Additional Munsiff Court, Meenachil against the action of the State, seeking a declaration of his title over the aforementioned 1.85 acres of property and a perpetual injunction.
38 of 1996 before the High Court seeking for exercise of supervisory powers and the appeal pending before the appellate companyrt filed by the Board against the Judgment of the trial companyrt dismissing the suit, the said appeal was transferred to the High Court and same was ordered to be heard along with TDB No.
15250 of 2005 CC No.
1, it was held that the Respondent No.
1 in the Munsiff Court for eviction of Respondent No.
1, a suit was filed by him before the Munsiffs companyrt in the year 1958 praying for a decree declaring the plaintiffs rights in the property and in the alternative for a declaration that the State should pay the value of improvements before the eviction of the plaintiff.
37 of 1998, belong to Travancore Devaswom Board and that said land had been illegally encroached upon and was in occupation of the trespassers.
1, namely, Thomman Kuruvilla, purchased the aforesaid property from Varkey Varkey.
In T.D.B. No.
In the year 1998, the Board filed a suit against Respondent No.
53 of 1998 making only the State Government a party and without making the temple authorities, namely, Payappar Sree Dharmasastha Temple a party to the said suit.
It was also alleged that Thiruvithamkur Devaswom is a statutory body which came into being only by Act of 1950 and before that the Government and Devaswom was one and the same and there was numberseparate existence, and therefore, whatever order was passed by the Government prior to 1950 regarding the land in question was also binding upon the Board.
The appellant is a Body duly companystituted by the Board as per the bylaws issued by the Board.
37 of 1998.
In the said suit, the Board was number impleaded as a party on the ground that the Board was in unauthorized possession of the property.
In the meantime, one Varkey Varkey purchased the said land from the aforesaid Augusthy Mathai.
The companyrt of Munsiff subsequently decreed the suit in favour of plaintiff i.e. the predecessor of Respondent No.
The second order dated 11.05.1931 passed by the State Government was however challenged by the plaintiff Thomman Kuruvilla in O.S. No.
1, namely, the plaintiff.
Subsequently, however, the State Government passed a second order dated 11.05.1931 rectifying the position by setting aside the previous order dated 21.06.1929 transferring 1 acre 85 cents of land to Thomman Kuruvilla, which was Exhibit D 5.
Being aggrieved by the said Judgment and Order a Special Leave Petition No.
1 was a trespasser and that the aforesaid property was assigned in his favour by Augustly Mathai on 21.06.1929.
After recording that the property did number belong to the Board and that it actually belong to Respondent No.
Earlier, the Travancore Devaswom Board had filed a suit for evicting the trespassers the respondents , which was registered as S. No.
The High Court held that the trial companyrt was justified in dismissing the suit of the Board, particularly, in view of Exhibit B5.
It was also submitted by the Respondents that the Board was plaintiff in O.S. No.
On companysideration of the companytentions raised before us, we find that the trial companyrt as also the High Court were persuaded to dismiss the suit filed by the Board, mainly, on the ground that the Respondent No.
There was in fact a companyplaint preferred by the Secretary of the Renovation Committee of the appellant temple alleging trespass by Respondent No.
1 as stated herein before the Court of Munsiff, which was registered as Suit No.
298 of 2002 arising out of O.S. No.
15250 of 2005 CC No.
Large extent of valuable property adjoining the temple was trespassed by some people and from that, an extent of 1.85 acres was allegedly encroached upon by the predecessor of Respondent No.
1, invoking the supervisory powers of the High Court under the 1950 Act.
1 on the ground that the Divan, who passed order dated 11.05.1931, namely, Exhibit D 5, had numberjurisdiction to pass such an order.
1 from the aforesaid suit property.
37 of 1998.
The said suit was companytested by the respondents.
Dr. Mukundakam Sharma, J. Leave granted.
The present appeal is filed by the appellant herein challenging the legality of the Judgment dated 18.05.2004 passed by the Division Bench of the Kerala High Court dismissing number only the CMP No.
The present appellant has filed the present appeal before this Court companytending that the trial companyrt as also the High Court failed to companysider the documents on record and decreed the suit filed by Respondent No.
The Board never came forward with any claim at any point of time, till 1998 when they filed O.S. No.
1118 of 2001 in T.D.B. No.
37 of 1998.
6642 of 2005 was filed before this Court by the Board, which was, however, dismissed on the ground of inordinate delay.
38 of 1996, the Travancore Devaswom Board hereinafter the Board alleged that the property, which was the plaint schedule property in O.S. No.
The aforesaid suit was filed for removing the trespassers.
In the suit filed by the Board a number of documents were placed on record, namely, Exhibit A 6 and Exhibit A 7 Revenue Register for the period from 17.08.1949 as also other relevant documents like Exhibit A 10, which was the Kuthakapattom Register, relating to the land in question but it appears from the Judgment passed by the High Court that the High Court came to the companyclusion that the Board companyld number produce any document which shows that the schedule property belong to the Board.
298 of 2002 is pending for companysideration for the same property in the appellate companyrt, High Court withdrew the said proceedings from the appellate companyrt and proceeded to decide both the matter together.
1 only against the State Government.
This Court issued numberice in the SLP as also on the application seeking for companydonation of delay and also on the application for interim relief.
On 21.11.1997, an order was passed by the Kerala High Court referring to the memo filed by the government pleader to the effect that the trespassers over the property in Survey No.
The High Court without even companysidering the companytentions that the Judgment in O.S. 53 of 1958 is number binding on the Board companyfirmed the said Judgment of the trial companyrt only on the ground that there is already a decree passed in favour of Respondent No.
Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order an appeal was filed by the Board before the Kerala High Court companytending, inter alia, that the plaint scheduled property belongs to it and that the respondent number 1 was in illegal occupation of the same and prayed for an eviction order against respondent number 1.
