Kerala High Court
Iruvaikonam Bhagavathi Temple vs State Of Kerala on 23 July, 2025
RP NOS. 721 & 876 OF 2025 in F.A.O.No.53/2025
1
2025:KER:54573
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.A.ABDUL HAKHIM
WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF JULY 2025 / 1ST SRAVANA, 1947
RP NO. 721 OF 2025
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 04.06.2025 IN FAO NO.53 OF 2025 OF HIGH
COURT OF KERALA
REVIEW PETITIONERS/APPELLANTS 1 TO 4:
1 IRUVAIKONAM BHAGAVATHI TEMPLE
IRUVAIKONAM, THIRUPURAM DESOM, THIRUPURAM VILLAGE,,
NEYYATTINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM., PIN - 695123
2 MADHU.T.K
AGED 53 YEARS
S/O. THANKAPPAN, RESIDING AT DEVI DARSHAN, NANGARATHALAMELE,
ATHIYANNUR, VENPAKAL P.O., NEYYATTINKARA REPRESENTED BY THE
SECRETARY, IRUVAIKONAM BHAGAVATHI TEMPLE., PIN - 695123
3 SASIDHARAN
AGED 76 YEARS
S/O. MRUTHYYUNJAYAN FROM MEKKE KUZHIVILA VEEDU, THIRUPURAM
DESOM, NEYYATTINKARA, NOW RESIDING AT FLAT NO. 104,
JOURNALIST ROAD NCC NAGAR, PEROORKADA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
REPRESENTED BY THE PRESIDENT, IRUVAIKONAM BHAGAVATHI
TEMPLE., PIN - 695133
4 T.K.THANKAPPAN NAIR
AGED 70 YEARS
S/O. THANU PILLAI, PULIMOODU VEEDU, THIRUPURAM DESOM,
NEYYATTINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REPRESENTED BY THE
ASST.SECRETARY, PIN - 695121
BY ADV SHRI.V.S.BABU GIREESAN
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031
RP NOS. 721 & 876 OF 2025 in F.A.O.No.53/2025
2
2025:KER:54573
2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KUDAPPANAKUNNU,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
3 THE SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KUDAPPANAKUNNU,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
4 CHANDRASEKHARAN
AGED 60 YEARS
S/O. RAGHAVAN, RESIDING AT NEEROTTUKARA VEEDU, THIRUPURAM
DESOM, NEYYATTINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695014
5 THAMARAKSHY
AGED 58 YEARS
D/O. GOURI, KODIVILAKATHU VEEDU, NEEROTTUKARA VEEDU,
THIRUPURAM DESOM, NEYYATTINKARA,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695014
6 T.K. VIJAYA KUMAR
S/O. THANKAPPAN, DEVI NIVAS, EENTHIVILA, OLATHANNI,
NEYYATTINKARA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM., PIN - 695121
7 PRESIDENT
IRUVAIKONAM BHAGAVATHI KSHETHRA YOGAM TRUST, REG.NO.
110/1982, IRUVAIKONAM, MULLUVILA.P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.,
PIN - 695009
8 SECRETARY
IRUVAIKONAM BHAGAVATHI KSHETHRA YOGAM TRUST, REG.NO.
110/1982, IRUVAIKONAM, MULLUVILA.P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.,
PIN - 695121
R1 TO R3 BY SMT. REKHA C. NAIR, SR. GOVT. PLEADER
R6 TO R8 BY ADV SHRI.P.U.SHAILAJAN
THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23.07.2025,
ALONG WITH RP.876/2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
RP NOS. 721 & 876 OF 2025 in F.A.O.No.53/2025
3
2025:KER:54573
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.A.ABDUL HAKHIM
WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF JULY 2025 / 1ST SRAVANA, 1947
RP NO. 876 OF 2025
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 04.06.2025 IN FAO NO.53 OF 2025 OF HIGH
COURT OF KERALA
REVIEW PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS 6 TO 8/ADDL.RESPONDENTS 6 TO 8:
1 T.K.VIJAYA KUMAR
AGED 61 YEARS
S/O.THANKAPPAN, DEVI NIVAS, EENTHIVILA, OLATHANNI,
NEYYATTINKARA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695121
2 PRESIDENT
IRUVAIKONAM BHAGAVATHI KSHETHRA YOGAM TRUST,
REG.NO.110/1982, IRUVAIKONAM MULLUVILA P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695009
3 SECRETARY
IRUVAIKONAM BHAGAVATHI KSHETHRA YOGAM TRUST,
REG.NO.110/1982, IRUVAIKONAM MULLUVILA P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695009
BY ADV SHRI.P.U.SHAILAJAN
RESPONDENTS/APPELLANTS AND RESPONDENTS 1 TO 5/PETITIONERS 1 TO 5 AND
RESPONDENTS 1 TO 5:
1 IRUVAIKONAM BHAGAVATHI TEMPLE
IRUVAIKONAM, THIRUPURAM DESOM, THIRUPURAM VILLAGE,
NEYYATTINKARA,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695123
2 MADHU T.K
S/O.THANKAPPAN, DEVI DARSHAN, ANGARATHALAMELE, ATHIYANNUR,
VENPAKAL P.O., NEYYATTINKARA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY,
IRUVAIKONAM BHAGAVATHI TEMPLE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695123
RP NOS. 721 & 876 OF 2025 in F.A.O.No.53/2025
4
2025:KER:54573
3 SASIDHARAN
S/O.MRUTHYUNJAYAN, FROM MEKKE KUZHIVILA VEEDU, THIRUPUTAM
DESOM, NEYYATTINKARA, NOW RESIDING AT FLAT NO.104, JOUNALIST
ROAD, NCC NAGAR, PEROORKADA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED
BY THE PRESIDENT, IRUVAIKONAM BHAGAVATHI TEMPLE,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695123
4 T.K.THANKAPPAN NAIR
S/O.THANU PILLAI, PULIMOODU VEEDU, THIRUPURAM DESOM,
NEYYATTINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY THE
ASSITANT SECRETARY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695121
5 A.MADHAVAN
S/O.ANTONY, MELEVATHIKUZHY VEEDU, THIRUPURAM DESOM,
THIRUPURAM VILLAGE, NEYYATTINKARA, REPRESENTED BY THE MEMBER
OF THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695121
6 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031
7 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KUDAPPANAKKUNNU,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
8 THE SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KUDAPPANAKKUNNU,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
9 CHANDRASEKHARAN
S/O.RAGHAVAN, RESIDING AT NEEROTTUKARA VEEDU, THIRUPURAM
DESOM, NEYYATTINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695014
10 THAMARAKSHY
D/O.GOURI, KODIVILAKATHU VEEDU, NEEROTTUKARA VEEDU,
THIRUPURAM DESOM, NEYYATTINKARA,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695014
R6 TO R8 BY SMT. REKHA C. NAIR, SR. GOVT.PLEADER
THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23.07.2025,
ALONG WITH RP.721/2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
RP NOS. 721 & 876 OF 2025 in F.A.O.No.53/2025
5
2025:KER:54573
ORDER
[RP Nos.721/2025, 876/2025]
1. The appellants 1 to 4 have filed R.P. No.721/2025 and the respondents 6 to 8 have filed R.P. No.876/2025 to review the judgment dated 04.06.2025 passed in the F.A.O. No.53/2025.
2. The appeal was filed challenging the Order dismissing O.P. (Trust) No.5/2022, seeking leave to institute a suit on behalf of the 1st petitioner temple under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. This court dismissed the appeal by the impugned judgment, confirming the order of the Trial Court.
3. I heard the learned counsel for the Review Petitioners in both the R.Ps - Sri. V.S. Babu Gireesan and Sri. P.U. Shailajan.
4. The learned counsel for the Review Petitioners in R.P. No.721/2025 contended that there is an error apparent on the face of the record with respect to the findings of this Court in the impugned judgment. On going through the grounds raised in the Review Petition and the arguments advanced before me, the Petitioner has not made out any error apparent on the face of the record to seek review. The contention is that the finding RP NOS. 721 & 876 OF 2025 in F.A.O.No.53/2025 6 2025:KER:54573 of this Court with respect to possession is not correct. When publication under Order I Rule 8 CPC is there, there could not be any non-joinder of parties. The interference of the State machinery at the instance of the respondents in the administration of the temple was not properly considered by this Court. It necessitates a scheme for the administration of the temple. While granting liberty, this Court failed to note that liberty was neither applied nor sought for.
5. The Trial Court dismissed the Petition under Section 92 CPC filed by the petitioners, holding that the Trust created as per Ext.A11 and the Trustees are necessary parties to the suit; that the 1st petitioner is not properly represented; that none of the factors enumerated in Section 92 is pleaded in the case; and that the petitioners are vindicating their personal rights to manage the temple.
6. In the impugned judgment, this Court found that it could not be said that the petitioners have instituted the proceeding vindicating their personal rights to manage the temple and that there is a necessity of direction of the Court for the RP NOS. 721 & 876 OF 2025 in F.A.O.No.53/2025 7 2025:KER:54573 administration. The petitioners 2 to 5 claimed that they are the elected representatives of the General Body of the 1st petitioner and thus they are having real and substantial interest in the management affairs of the public temple on the basis of such status. Since the petitioners could not prove their status as the elected representatives, this Court held that there could not be any prima facie finding that the applicants are having real, substantive and existing right in the temple and hence the Petition would fail. This Court found that the petition is not properly framed to satisfy all the conditions enumerated in Section 92 CPC. This Court further found that when a Trust is created as per Ext.A11 to manage the temple and if there is mismanagement in the Trust, suit is to be instituted with respect to the said Trust; that a scheme cannot be framed for the management of the temple ignoring Ext.A11 Trust Deed created as per General Body decision for forming a Trust for the management of the temple; that in a Petition for leave is filed with respect to the said Trust, the Trust and the Trustees are necessary parties; that if the arrangements RP NOS. 721 & 876 OF 2025 in F.A.O.No.53/2025 8 2025:KER:54573 made in the Trust Deed are not sufficient for the management of the temple, in such case also, there is necessity of direction of the Court for the administration of temple; and that in the case on hand the petitioners do not have such a case. This Court did not find that the petition filed by the petitioners is bad for non-joinder of parties. The finding of this Court is that the petition is not properly framed and the petitioners could not prove that they are having real and substantial interest in the management affairs of the public temple. Hence, the publication under Order I Rule 8 has no relevance. Liberty was given to the petitioners 2 to 5 to file a proper petition for leave with respect to the Trust created as per Ext.A11, since it is found that the Petition is not properly framed. If the petitioners do not want a liberty, they need not avail the same. It could not be a ground for reviewing the impugned judgment. The other contention of the Petitioners in effect is that certain findings of this Court are erroneous. It is well settled that an erroneous decision cannot be corrected in Review and only an error apparent on the face of the record alone could be RP NOS. 721 & 876 OF 2025 in F.A.O.No.53/2025 9 2025:KER:54573 corrected in Review. The petitioner wanted to re-agitate the matter in this Review, which is not permissible. Hence, this Review is liable to be dismissed.
7. The contention of the learned counsel for the Review Petitioners in R.P. No.876/2025 is that this Court entered a wrong finding that the respondents did not produce any document to prove that they are in management of the Trust and in the absence of the said records, there is necessity for the direction of the Court for the administration of the Trust. Learned counsel contended that the respondents had produced 16 documents before the Trial Court to substantiate the case of the respondents, but the same were omitted to be marked by the Trial Court in the evidence while considering the petition. Those documents would prove that there is an existing managing committee formed as per Ext.A11 Trust Deed to manage the temple. Hence, the aforesaid finding in the impugned judgment is an error apparent on the face of the record.
8. In the impugned judgment, this Court found that in the RP NOS. 721 & 876 OF 2025 in F.A.O.No.53/2025 10 2025:KER:54573 Original Order dated 06.12.2023 passed by the Trial Court in the first round of litigation, Exts.A1 to A16 documents were marked from the side of the Applicants and Exts.B1 and B2 documents from the side of the respondents; that in the impugned Order, none of the documents are shown in the Appendix; and that the documents which are shown in the Appendix of the Original Order form part of the records and the relevant documents among them are produced by the parties in the appeal. Hence, this Court considered the documents produced by the parties in the appeal as per the making of the same in the original order. After considering those documents, this Court found that nothing was produced and marked before the Trial Court to prove that the Committee was existing as on the date of the Application; that the respondents 6 to 8 could not prove the existence of office bearers to manage the temple; that they have not stated when the last election was conducted before the date of Application for leave. This Court took note of Annexure R7(k) Notice for General Body dated 18/12/2022 proposing to hold General RP NOS. 721 & 876 OF 2025 in F.A.O.No.53/2025 11 2025:KER:54573 Body on 08/01/2023 and the Ext.R7(j) Minutes of the General Body dated 08/01/2023, produced along with the Counter Affidavit and found that even if these documents are taken into consideration, it would not help the party respondents to prove that the Managing Committee was existing as on the date of filing of Application for leave, as these documents are dated subsequent to the filing of Application for leave. Considering the evidence available before this Court, this Court found that the non-production of records relating to the years previous to the Application for leave would prima facie prove that no Managing Committee was existing as on the date of filing of Application for leave. There is no error apparent on the face of the records. The Review Petitioners cannot have any grievance against such finding, as this Court has only confirmed the order refusing to grant leave. Only when a fresh proper Application for leave under Section 92 CPC is filed before the Trial Court, the Trial Court has to consider the matter afresh, considering the evidence produced before it. Hence, this Review is also liable to be dismissed. RP NOS. 721 & 876 OF 2025 in F.A.O.No.53/2025 12 2025:KER:54573
9. Accordingly, both the Review Petitions are dismissed.
Sd/-
M.A.ABDUL HAKHIM JUDGE Shg/ RP NOS. 721 & 876 OF 2025 in F.A.O.No.53/2025 13 2025:KER:54573 APPENDIX OF RP 721/2025 PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure 1 COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT DATED 11/10/2012 IN RP NO.263/2012 Annexure 2 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT REPORTED IN 1990AIR SUPREME COURT 642, CHAIRMAN, TAMIL NADU HOUSING BOARD, MADRAS VS T.N. GANAPATHY RP NOS. 721 & 876 OF 2025 in F.A.O.No.53/2025 14 2025:KER:54573 APPENDIX OF RP 876/2025 PETITIONERS ANNEXURES Annexure A1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE I.A.NO.2/2023 FILED BY THE REVIEW PETITIONERS 2 AND 3 IN O.P.(TRUST)NO.5/2022 BEFORE THE II ADDITIONAL SUB COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM Annexure A2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT IN O.S.NO.252/2023 Annexure A3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ANOTHER DOCUMENT LIST IN O.S.NO:252/2023 Annexure A4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE I.A.NO.454/2024 IN O.P.(TRUST)NO.5/2022 Annexure A5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE 1ST REVIEW PETITIONER IN O.P.(TRUST) NO.5/2022