Kerala High Court
N.T.Viswanathan Nair vs K.N.Naranan Namboothiri on 8 February, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN
MONDAY, THE 08TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 19TH MAGHA,1942
OP(C).No.1887 OF 2020
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 16-11-2020IN I.A.NO. 904/2019 IN O.S.NO.
32/2018 OF SUB COURT, PALA
----------
PETITIONERS/PLAINTIFF 1 AND 2:
1 N.T.VISWANATHAN NAIR
AGED 65 YEARS
S/O GOVINDAN NAIR,NELLALAYIL HOUSE,
POOVARANI.P.O, POOVARANI KARA,POOVARANI
VILLAGE,MEENACHIL TALUK,PIN-686577.
2 RAJESH.A.G,
AGED 33 YEARS
S/O.GOPALAKRISHNA PILLAI,
IKKARAKKUNNEL HOUSE,POOVARANI.P.O,POOVARANI
KARA,POOVARANI VILLAGE,MEENACHIL TALUK,
PIN-686577.
BY ADV. SRI.P.C.HARIDAS
RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS 1 TO 4:
1 K.N.NARANAN NAMBOOTHIRI
S/O.KD NARAYANAN NAMBOOTHIRI,
KALLAMBALLY ILLAM,POOVARANI KARA,
POOVARANI VILLAGE,MEENACHIL TALUK,
PIN-686577.
2 MANAGER,
THEKKESWAMIYAR MADAM,PAZHAYA NADAKKAVU,
THEKKAMDAM ROAD,TRISSUR DISTRICT,
PIN-680001.
3 POOVARANI MAHADEVA TEMPLE,
REPRESENTED BY PRESIDENT,DEVASWAM BHARANASAMITHI
SUNIL KUMAR,S/O.SANKARANKUTTY NAIR,AGED 48
YEARS,ANIKKATTU HOUSE,POOVARANI.P.O, POOVARANI
KARA,POOVARANI VILLAGE,
MEENACHIL TALUK,PIN-686577.
OP(C).No.1887 OF 2020
4 POOVARANI MAHADEVA TEMPLE,
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY,DEVASWAM BHARANASAMITHI
SAJEEV KUMAR E.S,
S/O CHANDRASEKHARAN NAIR,AGED 54 YEARS,
SREEBHAVAN HOUSE,POOVARANI.P.O, POOVARANI
KARA,POOVARANI VILLAGE,MEENACHIL TALUK,
PIN-686577.
R1 BY ADV. SRI.ABRAHAM GEORGE JACOB
R1 BY ADV. SRI.C.MURALIKRISHNAN (PAYYANUR)
R1 BY ADV. SHRI.AKSHAY R
R2 BY ADV. SRI.LIJI.J.VADAKEDOM
THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08.02.2021,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
SATHISH NINAN, J.
==================
O. P. (C) No.1887 of 2020
==================
Dated this the 8th day of February, 2021
JUDGMENT
The plaintiffs challenge the order allowing the
first respondent in this Original Petition to get
himself impleaded as an additional defendant in the
suit.
2. As to whether the temple in question is a
public temple or not, is the question involved in
the suit. The first respondent herein moved an
application seeking to get himself impleaded in the
suit on the allegation that there is collusion
between the plaintiff and the defendants; the claim
is that the temple is a public temple. Though
relying on the judgment of a division bench of this
Court in Rajeevan v. Deputy Commissioner (2020 (3) KLT 470, the
learned counsel for the petitioner would canvass
against the impleadment, on the nature of the
contentions, the right claimed, the allegation
levelled and the nature of reliefs claimed in the
suit, his presence cannot be said to be
O. P. (C) No.1887 of 2020
unnecessary. Moreover, as noticed by the Division
Bench, multiplicity of proceedings and conflicting
decisions could also be avoided. The trial court
was right in having allowed the impleading
application. There is no error of jurisdiction
warranting interference with the order impugned.
Original petition fails and is accordingly
dismissed.
Sd/-
SATHISH NINAN
JUDGE
kns/-
//True Copy//
P.S. to Judge
OP(C).No.1887 OF 2020
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN 32/2018 ON THE
FILES OF THE SUB COURT,PALA.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT OF THE
2ND RESPONDENT IN EXHIBIT P1 SUIT
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF I.A.NUMBER 904/2019 IN EXHIBIT
P1 SUIT
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION TO EXT.P3 FILED
BY THE PETITIONERS
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 16-11-2020 IN
I.A.NO.NUMBER 904/2019 IN OS 32/2018 OF THE
SUB COURT,PALA.
--------------
