Aparna vs Cochin Devaswom Board
2021 Latest Caselaw 15689 Ker

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                       PRESENT

                   THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

               FRIDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF JULY 2021 / 8TH SRAVANA, 1943

                               WP(C) NO. 9035 OF 2021

PETITIONER:

               APARNA
               AGED 19 YEARS
               D/O.T.V. MANJULA, SREENILAYAM, THIRUVANATH WARRIAM, ENGAKKADU P.O,
               WADAKKANCHERRY, THRISSUR - 680589.

               BY ADVS.
               K.B.GANGESH
               SMT.SMITHA CHATHANARAMBATH
               SMT.ATHIRA A.MENON



RESPONDENTS:

     1         COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD
               REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, THRISSUR DISTRICT - 680001.

     2         ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
               COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD, THIRUVILLUAMALA GROUP, WADAKKANCHERRY P.O,
               THRISSUR - 680589.

     3         DEVASWOM OFFICER
               RUDHIRA MAHAKALI KAVU BAGAVATHI TEMPLE (UTHRALIKKAVU),
               KUMARANELLUR P.O, THRISSUR - 680590.

     4         UTHRALIKKAVU KSHETHRA UPADASHAKA SAMITHI,
               COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD, KUMARANELLUR P.O, THRISSUR - 680590.


OTHER PRESENT:

               SRI. K.P.SUDHEER - SC




      THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30.07.2021, THE

COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 9035 OF 2021

                                     2




                             JUDGMENT

The petitioner asserts that the "Karanma Kazhakam" as

regards "Uthralikkavu Temple" is vested in the 'Thiruvanath

Warriam', of which, she is a member. She says that, on the death

of the person who was holding this right earlier, it was liable to be

passed over to another member of the family, as had been

recommended by others. She says that, as is evident from Exts.P5

to P8, every member of the family has recommended her name to

carry forward the "Karanma Kazhakam" on behalf of the family

and that this recommendation has been accepted by the

"Thanthri", the "Uranma" and the 4 th respondent - Kshethra

Upadeshaka Samithi.

2. The petitioner alleges that, however, inspite of the

above, the 1st respondent - Cochin Devaswom Board (Board for

short hereinafter) has issued Ext.P11 order granting her only

"Karanma Kazhakam" for four and a half months, without making

any provision for the balance period. She asserts that Ext.P11 is

flawed because it records that, as per the title documents, there

are two "thavazhis" for the family, the first of which is entitled to

seven and a half months and the latter - of which she is a member,

being entitled only to rest of the four and a half months in a year. WP(C) NO. 9035 OF 2021

The petitioner says that there are no two "thavazhis" in the

family; and that it was only an internal arrangement among the

members of the same family; but this has been misinterpreted by

the 1st respondent in issuing Ext.P11. She adds that the affidavits

of the members of the family on record, namely Exts.P5 to P8, will

clearly demonstrate this. She, therefore, prays that Ext.P11 be set

aside and the Board be directed to issue orders granting her

"Karanma Kazhakam" for the entire year.

3. I have heard Sri.K.B.Gangesh, learned counsel for the

petitioner; Sri.K.P.Sudheer - learned Standing Counsel appearing

for respondents 1 to 3 and Smt.Mayadas, learned counsel

appearing for the 4th respondent.

4. Sri.K.P.Sudheer, initially sought time to file counter

pleadings but then explained that Ext.P11 order is based solely on

the title documents produced by the petitioner. He submitted that,

as per the title documents, the 1st respondent found that there

were two 'Thavazhis' for the family, the first among is entitled to

7½ months of "Karanma Kazhakam"; while the latter, in which the

petitioner is included, being entitled only to the balance four and

a half months in a year. He submitted that therefore, Ext.P11 is

irreproachable and prayed that this writ petition be dismissed. WP(C) NO. 9035 OF 2021

5. When I evaluate the afore submissions, it is obvious

that this case is edificed on questions of fact, rather than

questions of law.

6. Obviously, therefore, it will be very difficult for this

Court to conclusively decide the matter, on account of the well

accepted restrictions on the jurisdiction of this Court in dealing

with questions of fact.

7. That said, since the petitioner asserts that the title

documents do not show that there are two "thavazhis' in the

family and that Exts.P5 to P8 sworn statements and since the

affidavits are stated to have been sworn by all other members of

the family in her favour, I am of the certain view that the matter

will require to be reconsidered by the competent Authority of the

1st respondent, after affording necessary opportunity of being

heard to the petitioner, as also to the other members of the

family, if it is so necessary.

In the afore circumstances, I set aside Ext.P7 to the extent to

which it limits the "Karanma Kazhakam" in favour of the

petitioner to only four and a half months in a year; with a

consequential direction to the Secretary of the Cochin Devasom

Board to reconsider the matter, after affording an opportunity of WP(C) NO. 9035 OF 2021

being heard to the petitioner, as also to other members of the

family and after allowing them to produce all relevant documents,

thus culminating in an appropriate order thereon, adverting

specifically to Exts.P5 to P8 affidavits.

The afore exercise shall be completed by the Secretary of

the Devswom Board as expeditiously as is possible, but not later

than two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this

judgment; until which time, the interim order granted by this

Court on 08.04.2021, as per which the petitioner has been

allowed to continue to hold the "Karanma Kazhakam" will be in

force.

This writ petition is thus ordered.

SD/-

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE rp WP(C) NO. 9035 OF 2021

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 9035/2021

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF RELEVANT PAGES OF DOCUMENT NO.

1840/1953 OF SRO WADAKKANCHERRY DATED 09.10.1953.

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST DATED 20.05.2020 SUBMITTED BY T.V. RAJALAKSHMI WARASIYAR TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT ON 20.05.2020.

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF AFFIDAVIT DATED 08.10.2020 EXECUTED BY PARVATHI WARASIYAR AND OTHERS OF THIRUVANATH WARRIAM.

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT DATED 27.03.2021 EXECUTED BY SHYLAJA OF THIRUVANATH WARRIAM.

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF AFFIDAVIT DATED 27.03.2021 EXECUTED BY SURESH KUMAR AND ANOTHER OF THIRUVANATH WARRIAM.

EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE CONSENT LETTER ISSUED BY THE THANTRI OF UTHRALIKKAVU TEMPLE ON 01.10.2020.

EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE CONSENT LETTER ISSUED BY THE OORAYNMA OF THE TEMPLE ON 29.09.2020.

EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE CONSENT LETTER ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED NIL.

EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF REQUEST DATED 06.10.2020 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS MOTHER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WP(C) NO. 22689/2020 DATED 22.10.2020.

EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 24.03.2021 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 20.10.2020 ISSUED BY 4TH RESPONDENT CERTIFYING PERFORMANCE OF KAZHAKAM DUTIES AT PRESENT BY THE PETITIONER'S MOTHER IN UTHRALIKKAVU TEMPLE.