Kerala High Court
R.Bhadra Kumar vs The Secretary on 8 November, 2024
Author: Anil K.Narendran
Bench: Anil K.Narendran
2024:KER:83603
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR
FRIDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2024/ 17TH KARTHIKA, 1946
W.P.(C) NO. 30142 OF 2023
PETITIONER:
TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD REP BY IT'S SECRETARY
DEVASWOM HEAD QUARTERS, NANDANCODE,
KOWDIAR.P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695003.
BY ADV G.SANTHOSH KUMAR (P).
RESPONDENTS:
1 INSPECTOR GENERAL OF REGISTERATION
DEPARTMENT OF REGISTERATION, VANCHIYOOR P.O,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695035.
2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR
2ND FLOOR, CIVIL STATION BUILDING,
KUDAPPANAKUNNU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
PIN - 695043.
3 THE TAHASILDAR
TALUK OFFICE, NEYYATINKARA P.O,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695121.
2024:KER:83603
2
W.P.(C) No.30142 of 2023
and DBP No.86 of 2023
4 THE SUB REGISTRAR
SUB REGISTRAR OFFICE, KULATHOOR
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695122.
5 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER
POZHIYOOR POLICE STATION, POZHIYOOR,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695513.
6 R.RAJASEKHARAN NAIR
KALABHAVAN, ERICHELLOOR, PLAMOOTUKADA P.O,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695122 (FORMER
PRESIDENT OF TAC).
7 K.PRAMOD
KEASAVA VILASAM, MARADI, ERICHELLOOR,
PLAMOOTUKADA P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM (FORMER
SECRETARY OF TAC), PIN - 695122.
8 S.VIJAYAN
OTTAPLAVILA V.S BHAVAN, PLAMOOTUKADA P.O,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, (FORMER TAC MEMBER),
PIN - 695122.
9 KEEZHSSERYILL SEVA TRUST
REG.NO.1664/2022, BUILDING NO.VIII. 331/1,
KARODE ERICHELLOOR, PLAMOOTUKADA,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REP. BY IT'S PRESIDENT
SHAJHU.V.NAIR, S/O VELAPPAN NAIR, SOUPARNIKA,
PLAMMOTUKADA, KARODE, NEYYATINKARA,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695122.
10 TEMPLE ADVISORY COMMITTEE
SREE KEEZHSERI MADOM NEELAKESI DEVI TEMPLE,
KARODE, NEYYATINKARA, ERICHELLOOR,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- REP. BY ITS PRESIDENT
B.J.BALACHANDRAN, S/O BALAKRISHNAN NAIR,
RESIDING AT KANAKA NIVAS, PLAMOOTUKADA P.O,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-, PIN - 695122.
2024:KER:83603
3
W.P.(C) No.30142 of 2023
and DBP No.86 of 2023
BY ADVS.
G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR)
ARUN V.G.
VINOD BHAT S
R.T.PRADEEP
V.JAYA RAGI
R.HARIKRISHNAN (KAMBISSERIL)
NEERAJ NARAYAN
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR FINAL
HEARING ON 03.10.2024, ALONG WITH DBP.86/2023, THE COURT
ON 08.11.2024 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2024:KER:83603
4
W.P.(C) No.30142 of 2023
and DBP No.86 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR
FRIDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2024/ 17TH KARTHIKA, 1946
DBP NO. 86 OF 2023
TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD - REPORT NO.38/2023 COMPLAINT
NO. 187/2022 - ALLEGATION AGAINST - TEMPLE ADVISORY
COMMITTEE OF THE ERICHALLOOR SREE KEEZHSSERI MADOM
NEELAKESI DEVI TEMPLE
PETITIONER:
R.BHADRA KUMAR
MUTHUKUDIVILAKATHU PUTHENVEEDU, ERICHALLOOR,
PLAMOOTTUKKADA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
BY ADV R.T.PRADEEP
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE SECRETARY
TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, NANTHANCODE, KAWDIAR
POST, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA, PIN- 695 003.
2 DEVASWOM OFFICER
SREE KEEZHSSERI MADOM NEELAKESI DEVI TEMPLE,
ERICHALLUR, ARAYUR SUB GROUP, NEYYATTINKARA
GROUP, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD.
3 R.RAJASEKHARAN NAIR
KALA BHAVAN, ERICHALLOOR, PLAMOOTTUKKADA P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
2024:KER:83603
5
W.P.(C) No.30142 of 2023
and DBP No.86 of 2023
4 K.PROMOD
KESAVA VILASAM, MARADI, ERICHALLOOR,
PLAMOOTTUKKADA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
5* THE TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD
NANTHANCODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 003,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
6* THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR
KERALA STATE AUDIT DEPARTMENT, TRAVANCORE
DEVASWOM BOARD, NANTHANCODE,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 003.
7** KEEZHSSERYILL SEVA TRUST (REG. NO.1664/2022)
BUILDING NO.VIII 331/1, KARODE ERICHELLOOR,
PLAMOOTUKADA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REP. BY ITS
PRESIDENT SHAJHU V.NAIR, S/O.VELAPPAN NAIR,
SOUPARNIKA, PLAMMOTUKADA, KARODE, NEYYATINKARA,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 122.
*ARE SUO MOTU IMPLEADED AS ADDITIONAL 5TH AND
6TH RESPONDENT VIDE ORDER DATED 12/09/2023 IN
DBP.NO.86/2023
**IS SUO MOTO IMPLEADED AS ADDITIONAL 7TH
RESPONDENT VIDE ORDER DATED 10/10/2023 IN
DBP.NO.86/2023.
SRI. S. RAJMOHAN, SR. GP
SRI. G. SANTHOSH KUMAR, SC, TDB
THIS DEVASWOM BOARD PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR
FINAL HEARING ON 03.10.2024, ALONG WITH
WP(C).30142/2023, THE COURT ON 08.11.2024 DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
2024:KER:83603
6
W.P.(C) No.30142 of 2023
and DBP No.86 of 2023
ANIL K. NARENDRAN & P.G. AJITHKUMAR, JJ.
-----------------------------------------------------------
and
-----------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 8th day of November, 2024
JUDGMENT/ORDER
P.G.Ajithkumar, J.
W.P.(C)No.30142 of 2023: Travancore Devaswom Board has
filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the 1 st
respondent Inspector General of Registration to consider and
pass appropriate orders on Ext.P8 complaint dated 20.02.2023
made by the Devaswom Commissioner demanding cancellation of
registration of deed No.1715/2015 with regard to the property
having an extent of 32 cents in Sy.No.200/20 in Karode Village.
The petitioner has also sought consequential reliefs.
2. DBP No.86 of 2023: This DBP was registered on
08.09.2023 based on Report No.38 of 2023 of the learned
Ombudsman for the Travancore Devaswom Board in Complaint
No.187 of 2022, which was one filed by the devotees of
2024:KER:83603
Erichalloor Sree Keezhsseri Madom Neelakesi Devi Temple (Sree
Neelakesi Devi Temple) raising serious allegations against
respondents No.3 and 4, who were the President and Secretary
of the erstwhile Temple Advisory Committee of that Temple,
holding office from the year 2014 to September, 2022. The
complaint centres around the land having an extent of 32 cents
in Sy.No.200/20 in Block No.48 of Karode Village, which is lying
adjacent to the temple compound. In the complaint, it is alleged
that, though the said property was purchased utilising the money
contributed by the devotees, sale deed No.1715/2015 dated
19.11.2015 of the Sub Registrar Office, Kulathoor, was executed
in the individual names of respondents No.3 and 4. In Report
No.38 of 2023, the learned Ombudsman has pointed out the
pendency of O.S.No.5 of 2023 before the Munsiff's Court,
Neyyattinkara.
3. On 10.10.2023, when these matters came up for
consideration, respondents No.7 and 8 in the writ petition, who
are respondents No.3 and 4 in the DBP, entered appearance
through their counsel. Respondents No.9 and 10 also entered
2024:KER:83603
appearance through their respective counsel. Despite service of
notice, none appears for the 6th respondent.
4. The petitioner placed on record a certified copy of
sale deed No.1715/2015 dated 19.11.2015 of the Sub Registrar
Office, Kulathoor, which was executed in the individual names of
respondents No.6 and 7, and a certified copy of document
No.1664/2022 of the Sub Registrar Office, Kulathoor, executed in
favour of the 9th respondent Keezhsseryill Seva Trust, in respect
of the land having an extent of 32 cents in Sy.No.200/20 in Block
No.48 of Karode Village, which is lying adjacent to the temple
compound of Sree Neelakesi Devi Temple. Having considered the
materials on record and also the submissions made at the Bar, an
interim order was passed restraining the 4th respondent in the
writ petition Sub Registrar Kulathoor from registering any
document in respect of the land having an extent of 32 cents in
Sy.No.200/20 in Block No.48 of Karode Village, which is lying
adjacent to the Temple compound of Sree Neelakesi Devi Temple,
covered by sale deed No.1715/2015 dated 19.11.2015, followed
by document No.1664/2022 of the Sub Registrar Office,
2024:KER:83603
Kulathoor, which presently stand in the name of the 9 th
respondent Keezhsseryill Seva Trust, for a period of one month.
The interim order was extended. On 15.03.2024, this Court, after
hearing the learned counsel for the respective parties directed
the Devaswom Officer, Sree Neelakesi Devi Temple to ensure that
the marriage hall in the disputed property is not used for any
purpose, pending disposal of these cases.
5. The 9th respondent filed a counter-affidavit dated
29.11.2023 in the writ petition producing therewith Ext.R9(a),
which is a copy of the trust deed No.1664/2022. The 9 th
respondent denied the allegations in the writ petition. It is
contended that the property in question was purchased by
respondents No.7 and 8 utilising their own fund. It was also
contended that the Mandapam in that property was
constructed by the 7th respondent, for which like-minded
people contributed money. Thus the 9 th respondent claimed
that the Devaswom Board has no right in the said property or
the Mandapam and the writ petition is ill-motivated.
2024:KER:83603
6. Respondents No.7 and 8 together filed their counter-
affidavit dated 29.11.2023 producing therewith Exts.R7(a) and
R7(b), which are copies of the sale deed No.1715/2015 and
trust deed No.1664/2022. These respondents also raised
contentions similar to that of the 9th respondent. It is explained
as to how they raised fund for purchasing the property in
question and specifically denied the claim of the petitioner over
the property and Mandapam in question.
7. The petitioner filed I.A.No.1 of 2024 producing
therewith Exts.P14 to P19. A counter-affidavit was filed by the
9th respondent in I.A.No.2 of 2024. Along with the counter-
affidavit, the 9th respondent produced Exts.R9(b) to R9(g).
Ext.R9(g) is a copy of the plaint in O.S.No.710 of 2024 on the
files of the Munsiff's Court, Neyyattinkara.
8. Heard the learned Standing Counsel for the
Travancore Devaswom Board, the learned Senior Government
Pleader and the learned counsel for respective party
respondents. The parties are referred to as arraigned and the
documents referred to as marked in W.P.(C) No.30142 of 2023.
2024:KER:83603
9. Sree Neelakesi Devi Temple is a Temple under the
management of the petitioner. Respondents No.6 and 7 were
the President and Secretary of the Temple Advisory
Committee in that Temple during the period from 2014 till
2022. Ext.R7(a) is the sale deed No.1715/2015, based on
which 32 cents of property comprised in Sy.No.200/20 in
Block No.48 of Karode Village was purchased in the name of
respondents No.7 and 8. Admittedly, a Mandapam was
constructed in that property. The property is situated
adjoining to the premises of the said Temple. Ext.R7(b) is a
trust deed registered as document No.1664/2022 at Sub
Registry Office, Ooruttambalam. Respondents No.7 and 8
have created the said trust and got the trust deed registered.
The said trust is the 9 th respondent. Common contention of
respondents No.6 to 9 is that the said 32 cents of property
was purchased by respondents No.7 and 8 utilising their own
funds and the Mandapam was constructed in that property
utilising their fund and also funds contributed by other like-
minded persons. It is their further contention that the said
2024:KER:83603
property together with the Mandapam vested in the Trust by
virtue of Ext.R7(b) trust deed. Accordingly, they would
maintain that the 9th respondent-Trust alone has right and
interest in the said property and the Mandapam.
10. The claim of the petitioner and also the 10th
respondent, the present Temple Advisory Committee is that
the said property was purchased utilising the funds collected
from the devotees of Sree Neelakesi Devi Temple for purchasing
land in favour of the Deity. They would allege that
respondents No.7 and 8 got Ext.R7(a) title deed executed in
their favour clandestinely and mischievously. The said fact
was revealed only belatedly. On getting information, the
petitioner has taken necessary steps for resumption of the
property in favour of the Deity. A vigilance enquiry was
conducted in the matter and the fact that the property was
purchased utilising the funds collected in the name of the
Deity has been revealed.
11. The learned counsel for the petitioner by placing
reliance on the decision of this Court in Arjunan T.N. v.
2024:KER:83603
President, Temple Advisory Committee [2012 (4) KHC
155] to submit that the land purchased out of the money
collected from the devotees in the name of the Deity stands
and vested with the Deity. Such a land would be exclusively
under the management and control of the Devaswom Board
on behalf of the Deity.
12. In the instant case, the findings in Ext.P12
vigilance enquiry report are that for purchasing the properties
in question, huge amounts were collected in the name of the
Deity from the devotees and that money was collected even
without issuing receipts. It was while respondents No.6, 7 and
8 were the office bearers and members of the Temple
Advisory Committee, the property was purchased in the name
of respondents No.7 and 8 and the property is a plot adjoining
the Temple compound. That itself is enough to establish prima
facie that the property was purchased for the benefit of the
Deity and the title to the property was vested with the Deity.
It was following that report, the petitioner has initiated steps
for resumption of possession of the property.
2024:KER:83603
13. In M.V.Ramasubbiar v. Manicka Narasimachara
[(1979) 2 SCC 65], in the context of Sections 49, 51 and 52
of the Trusts Act, 1882, the Apex Court explained the nature
of the fiduciary position of the trustee and his duties and
obligations. It is duty of the trustees of the property to be
faithful to the Trust and execute any document with
reasonable diligence in the manner of an ordinary prudent
man of business would conduct his own affairs. A trustee
could not therefore occasion any loss to the Trust and it is his
duty to sell the property, if at all that was necessary, to best
advantage. Paragraph 4 of that decision reads thus;
"4. There is some controversy on the question whether
Defendant 1 made an outright purchase of the suit
property for and on behalf of the trust for Rs 21,500 on
April 19, 1959, or whether he intended to purchase it
for himself and then decided to pass it on to the trust,
for defendants have led their evidence to show that the
property was allowed to be sold for Rs 21,500, which
was less than its market value, as it was meant for use
by the trust and that Defendant 1 was not acting
honestly when he palmed off the property to his son
soon after by the aforesaid sale deed Ext.B13 dated
July 14, 1960. The fact, however, remains that
2024:KER:83603
Defendant 1 was the trustee of the property, and it was
his duty to be faithful to the trust and to execute it with
reasonable diligence in the manner an ordinary prudent
man of business would conduct his own affairs. He
could not therefore occasion any loss to the trust and it
was his duty to sell the property, if at all that was
necessary, to best advantage. It has in fact been well
recognised as an inflexible rule that a person in a
fiduciary position like a trustee is not entitled to make a
profit for himself or a member of his family. It can also
not be gainsaid that he is not allowed to put himself in
any such position in which a conflict may arise between
his duty and personal interest, and so the control of the
trustee's discretionary power prescribed by Section 49
of the Act and the prohibition contained in Section 51
that the trustee may not use or deal with the trust
property for his own profit or for any other purpose
unconnected with the trust, and the equally important
prohibition in Section 52 that the trustee may not,
directly or indirectly, buy the trust property on his own
account or as an agent for a third person, cast a heavy
responsibility upon him in the matter of discharge of his
duties as the trustee. It does not require much
argument to proceed to the inevitable further
conclusion that the Rule prescribed by the aforesaid
sections of the Act cannot be evaded by making a sale
in the name of the trustee's partner or son, for that
would, in fact and substance, indirectly benefit the
2024:KER:83603
trustee. Where therefore a trustee makes the sale of a
property belonging to the trust, without any compelling
reason, in favour of his son, without obtaining the
permission of the court concerned, it is the duty of the
court, in which the sale is challenged, to examine
whether the trustee has acted reasonably and in good
faith or whether he has committed a breach of the trust
by benefitting himself from the transaction in an
indirect manner. The sale in question has therefore to
be viewed with suspicion and the High Court committed
an error of law in ignoring this important aspect of the
law although it had a direct bearing on the controversy
before it." (underline supplied)
14. In A.A. Gopalakrishnan v. Cochin Devaswom
Board [(2007) 7 SCC 482] a Three-Judge Bench of the
Apex Court held that the properties of deities, temples and
Devaswom Boards are required to be protected and
safeguarded by their trustees/archakas/shebaits/employees.
Instances are many where persons entrusted with the duty of
managing and safeguarding the properties of temples, deities
and Devaswom Boards have usurped and misappropriated
such properties by setting up false claims of ownership or
tenancy, or adverse possession. This is possible only with the
2024:KER:83603
passive or active collusion of the authorities concerned. Such
acts of 'fence eating the crops' should be dealt with sternly.
The Government, members or trustees of boards/trusts, and
devotees should be vigilant to prevent any such usurpation or
encroachment. It is also the duty of courts to protect and
safeguard the properties of religious and charitable
institutions from wrongful claims or misappropriation.
15. O.S.No.5 of 2023 was filed before the Munsiff's
Court, Neyyattinkara on behalf of the Deity of Sree Neelakesi
Devi Temple for a decree declaring that title to the property
covered by Ext.R7(a) was vested with the Deity and
consequential reliefs. Ext.P9 is a copy of the plaint in that suit.
Respondents No.7 to 9 filed O.S.No.710 of 2024 before the
Munsiff's Court, Neyyattinkara against the petitioner, the 10 th
respondent and a few others seeking a decree declaring that
respondents No.7 and 8 are the owners of the said property
and the building thereon and the title to the same vested with
respondent No.9-Trust. Thus, the question regarding title to
32 cents of property and the building thereon, which are
2024:KER:83603
covered by Ext.R7(a) is pending before a competent civil
court.
16. As pointed out above, the property was purchased
as per Ext.R7(a) in the name of respondents No.7 and 8,
while they were office bearers of the Temple Advisory
Committee. A Trust was subsequently created as per
Ext.R7(b) vesting the said property in the 9th respondent-
Trust. Going by the objectives of the trust as contained in
clause (5) of Ext.R7(b), the trust was created essentially for
the purpose of protecting the interest of the Deity of Sree
Neelakesi Devi Temple and to safeguard the interest of its
devotees. That would indicate that that the property was
purchased with the intention of using the same for the benefit
of the Deity of Sree Neelakesi Devi Temple and its devotees. As
held in the aforementioned decisions, respondents No.7 and
8, being the office bearers of the Temple Advisory Committee
during the relevant time, they were trustees of the Deity of
the Sree Neelakesi Temple. They, however, claim to be the
owners of the property. Being the trustees, it is their burden
2024:KER:83603
and obligation to establish that claim. Be that as it may, since
the matter is pending consideration of the competent civil
court and the essential question is concerning title to the
immovable property, which can be decided based on proper
pleadings and evidence only, we do not propose to decide that
question in this writ petition and DBP. It is for the civil court to
decide that question.
17. In terms of the interim orders granted by this
Court, the 4th respondent-Sub Registrar, Kulathoor was
restrained from registering any document in respect of the
property covered by sale deed No.1715/2015 dated
19.11.2015 of SRO, Kulathoor, having an extent of 32 cents
comprised in Sy.No.200/20 in Block No.48 of Karode Village
and the Devaswom Officer, Sree Neelakesi Devi Temple to
ensure that the marriage hall in the said property is not used
for any purpose. The dispute concerning the title of the
property is pending consideration of the civil court in
O.S.No.5 of 2023 and O.S.No.710 of 2024 on the files of the
Munsiff's Court, Neyyattinkara. Therefore, the said interim
2024:KER:83603
orders shall be in force till the final disposal of the said civil
suits.
With the aforesaid observations, this writ petition and
DBP are disposed of.
Sd/-
ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JUDGE
Sd/-
P.G. AJITHKUMAR, JUDGE
dkr
2024:KER:83603
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 30142/2023
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT-P1 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED
05/12/2022 SUBMITTED BY THE DEVASWOM
COMMISSIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT-P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY LETTER DATED
20/12/2022 OBTAINED BY THE DEVASWOM
COMMISSIONER FROM THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT-P3 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED
22/12/2022 ISSUED BY THE 4TH
RESPONDENT TO THE DEVASWOM
COMMISSIONER.
EXHIBIT-P4 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED
10/01/2023 PREFERRED BY THE DEVASWOM
COMMISSIONER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT-P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY LETTER DATED
31/01/2023 ISSUED BY THE SPECIAL
TAHSILDAR, LAND CONSERVANCY UNIT OF
THE TDB TO THE DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER.
EXHIBIT-P6 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED
07/02/2023 SUBMITTED BY THE ASSISTANT
DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER, NEYYATINKARA TO
THE DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER.
EXHIBIT-P7 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED
20/02/2023 SUBMITTED BY THE DEVASWOM
COMMISSIONER.
EXHIBIT-P8 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED
20/02/2023 SUBMITTED BY THE DEVASWOM
COMMISSIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT-P9 TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN
O.S.NO.05/2023 PENDING ON THE FILES OF
MUNSIFF COURT, NEYYATINKRA.
2024:KER:83603
EXHIBIT-P10 TRUE COPY OF THE BOARD ORDER DATED
13/06/2023.
EXHIBIT-P11 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED
24/06/2023 SUBMITTED BY THE ASSISTANT
DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER, NEYYATINKARA
ALONG WITH THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT RECEIPT
DATED 26/06/2023.
EXHIBIT-P12 TRUE COPY OF THE ENQUIRY REPORT ALONG
WITH COVERING LETTER DATED 10/05/2023
SUBMITTED BEFORE THE PRESIDENT OF THE
TDB.
EXHIBIT-P13 TRUE PHOTO COPY OF THE DICTUM LAID
DOWN IN D.B.P.NO.38/2011 DATED
22/08/2012 (ARJUNAN.T.N. V/S
PRESIDENT, TEMPLE ADVISORY COMMITTEE
AND OTHERS, 2012 (4) KHC,155).
EXHIBIT-P14 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED
22/11/2023 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE
ASSISTANT ENGINEER, KERALA STATE
ELECTRICITY BOARD, UCHAKADA AS PER THE
RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT, 2005.
EXHIBIT-P15 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED
23/11/2023 OBTAINED FROM THE PUBLIC
INFORMATION OFFICER, ELECTRICAL
SECTION, UCHAKADA.
EXHIBIT-P16 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED
06/11/2023 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE
SECRETARY, KARODE GRAMA PANCHAYAT AS
PER THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT,
2005.
EXHIBIT-P17 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED
22/11/2023 OBTAINED FROM THE PUBLIC
INFORMATION OFFICER, KARODE PANCHAYAT.
2024:KER:83603
EXHIBIT-P18 TRUE COPY OF THE LOCATION MAP DATED
NIL.
EXHIBIT-P19 PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING THE TEMPLE AND
IT'S PREMISES.
RESPONDENT EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT R7(A) A TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.
1715/2015 OF SRO KULATHOR DATED
19.11.2015
EXHIBIT R7(B) A TRUE COPY OF THE TRUST DEED NO.
1664/2022 OF SRO OORUTTAMBALAM DATED
31.12.2022
EXHIBIT R9(A) A TRUE COPY OF THE TRUST DEED NO.
1664/2022 OF SRO, OORUTTAMBALAM DATED
31.12.2022
EXHIBIT R9(B) THE TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT
DATED 12.06.2024 ISSUED BY KARODE
VILLAGE OFFICE
EXHIBIT R9(C) THE TRUE COPY OF THE OWNERSHIP
CERTIFICATE DATED 11.09.2024 ISSUED BY
KARODE GRAMA PANCHAYAT WITH RESPECT TO
BUILDING BEARING DOOR NO. 331/1 IN
EXHIBIT R9(D) THE TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING TAX
RECEIPT DATED 11.09.2024 ISSUED BY THE
KARODE GRAMA PANCHAYAT
EXHIBIT R9(F) THE COLOUR PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE SAID
BUILDING AND THE MARRIAGE HALL
EXHIBIT R9(E) THE 3D PICTURE OF THE OFFICE BUILDING
AND THE MARRIAGE HALL
EXHIBIT R9(G) THE TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S NO.
710 OF 2024 ON THE FILES OF THE
MUNSIFF COURT, NEYYATTINKARA
2024:KER:83603
EXHIBIT R10(A) TRUE COPY OF COMPLAINT VIDE ROC
27280/18/NS-I DATED 17.4.2023 BY THE
TEMPLE ADVISORY COMMITTEE BEFORE THE
HON'BLE DEVASWOM MINISTER
EXHIBIT R10(B) TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT NO.309
DATED 14.3.2024 MADE BY SUB GROUP
OFFICER, ARAYOOR OF PETITIONER TO THE
STATION HOUSE OFFICER OF POZHIYOOR
POLICE STATION
