[Cites 10, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
The Travancore Devaswom Board vs Vinod K on 18 December, 2025
Author: Anil K. Narendran
Bench: Anil K. Narendran
R.P.No.1021 of 2024 1
2025:KER:97950
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K. NARENDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALEE KRISHNA S.
THURSDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2025 / 27TH AGRAHAYANA, 1947
RP NO. 1021 OF 2024
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 05.09.2024 IN WP(C) NO.28292 OF
2024 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
REVIEW PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS 1 AND 2:
1 THE TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, DEVASWOM BOARD OFFICE,
NANTHANCODE, KAWDIAR P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695003
2 THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LAND CONSERVANCY)
TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, NANTHANCODE,
KAWDIAR P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695003
BY ADV SRI.G.SANTHOSH KUMAR (P).
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER & RESPONDENT 1:
1 VINOD K.,
S/O. KUMARAN ACHARY SREE DURGA,
PATHIYOOR EAST, KEERIKKAD PO,
ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 690508
2 THE VILLAGE OFFICER
PATHIYOOR VILLAGE OFFICE, PATHIYOOR,
PIN - 690106
3 SREEMANKULANGARA DEVASWOM
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, PATHIYOOR VILLAGE,
KEERIKKAD.P.O., KARTHIKAPPILLY,
PIN - 690508
R.P.No.1021 of 2024 2
2025:KER:97950
4 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER
KAREELAKULANGARA POLICE STATION ALAPPUZHA,
PIN - 690513
THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
18.12.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
R.P.No.1021 of 2024 3
2025:KER:97950
ORDER
Anil K. Narendran, J.
This review petition is listed before this Bench based on the
order dated 11.12.2025 of the Hon'ble the Chief Justice, on the
administrative side, whereby Registry was directed to place this
review petition before the Bench on the judicial side, since no
signed judgment is available in the case records and not uploaded
in CMS, though as per the endorsement made in the order sheet
and also on the docket of R.P.No.1021 of 2024, the said R.P. was
disposed of on 27.09.2024, along with the connected review
petition, i.e., R.P.No.1006 of 2024 arising out of the judgment
dated 05.09.2024 in W.P.(C)No.28292 of 2024, by a Division
Bench consisting of one among us [Anil K. Narendran, J] with P.G.
Ajithkumar, J, who had already demitted office. The order dated
27.09.2024 authored by P.G. Ajithkumar, J is available in the case
records of R.P.No.1006 of 2024, which is also uploaded in CMS.
However, due to an inadvertent omission, the number of
R.P.No.1021 of 2024, which was also heard on 27.09.2024 along
with R.P.No.1006 of 2024, was omitted to be mentioned in the
order dated 27.09.2024. When it was noticed by Registry the
2025:KER:97950
matter was placed before the Hon'ble the Chief Justice for
appropriate orders. In the above circumstances, the endorsement
regarding the disposal of this review petition on 27.09.2024 is
recalled. Registry to correct the status of R.P.No.1021 of 2024 in
CMS appropriately.
2. We heard arguments of the learned Standing Counsel
for Travancore Devaswom Board for the petitioners-respondents 1
and 2, the learned counsel for the 1st respondent-petitioner and
the learned Senior Government Pleader for respondents 2 and 4.
3. By the judgment dated 05.09.2024, W.P.(C)No.28292
of 2024 was disposed of with the directions contained in paragraph
7 of that judgment, which reads thus;
"7. In the light of the law laid down in the aforementioned
decisions, respondent Nos.1 to 3 have the solemn duty to
see that the property belonging to the Major Pathiyoor
Kuttikulangra Sree Durga Devi Temple is resumed without
inordinate delay. Therefore, while allowing this review
petition to the extent mentioned above, respondents Nos.1
to 3 are directed to take steps to get the aforementioned
appeal disposed of at the earliest and subject to the result
of the appeal to take necessary action in terms of Exts.P1
and P2, expeditiously."
4. By the order dated 27.09.2024, the connected review
2025:KER:97950
petition, i.e., R.P.No.1006 of 2024 was disposed of with the
directions contained in paragraph 7 of that order. The order dated
27.09.2024 in R.P.No.1006 of 2024 is extracted hereunder;
"The petitioner in W.P.(C) No.28292 of 2024 has filed this
petition for reviewing the judgment under Order XLVII, Rule
1 read with Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
(CPC). The writ petition was disposed of by judgment dated
05.09.2024. The petitioner points out that number of the
appeal pending before the Additional District Court,
Mavelikkara, reckoning which the writ petition was disposed
of, is wrong. The number of the appeal is A.S.No.44 of 2024
and not A.S.No.44 of 2023. Review of the judgment is
sought for the said reason.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner the learned
Standing Counsel for the Travancore Devaswom Board, the
learned Senior Government Pleader and the learned counsel
for the 4th respondent.
3. The writ petition was filed seeking a direction to
respondent Nos.1 to 3 to expedite the proceedings in terms
of Exts.P1 and P2 so as to resume the property of Major
Pathiyoor Kuttikulangara Sree Durga Devi Temple said to
have been trespassed upon by the 4th respondent. As per
Ext.P1, respondent No.2 decided to recover possession of
6.60 cents land belonging to the Temple in the possession
of the 4th respondent under the Kerala Land Conservancy
Act, 1957. The proceedings could not be taken forward since
O.S.No.336 of 2018 was pending before the competent civil
2025:KER:97950
court. The said suit was later dismissed. The petitioner filed
the writ petition at that juncture seeking a direction to take
further steps in pursuance of Exts.P1 and P2. However, the
4th respondent filed an appeal challenging dismissal of
O.S.No.336 of 2018. A.S.No.44 of 2024 now pending before
the Additional District Court, Mavelikkara is the said appeal.
On the basis of the submission at the Bar, the number of the
appeal was happened to be stated as A.S.No.44 of 2023.
The number of the appeal mentioned in the judgment is
corrected, in the above circumstances as A.S.No.44 of 2024.
4. 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 the 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
the best advantage.
5. 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, require 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
2025:KER:97950
misappropriated such properties by setting up false claims
of ownership or tenancy, or adverse possession. This is
possible only with the 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.
6. In Travancore Devaswom Board v. Mohanan Nair
[(2013) 3 KLT 132] a Division Bench of this Court noticed
that in A.A. Gopalakrishnan [(2007) 7 SCC 482] a
Three-Judge Bench of the Apex Court emphasised that it is
the duty of the courts to protect and safeguard the interest
and properties of the religious and charitable institutions.
The Division Bench further noticed that the relevant
principles under the Hindu law will show that the deity is
always treated similar to that of a minor and there are some
points of similarity between a minor and a Hindu idol. The
High Court is the guardian of the deity and apart from the
revisional jurisdiction under Section 103 of the Kerala Land
Reforms Act, 1963, the High Court has inherent jurisdiction
and the doctrine of parens patriae will also apply in
exercising the jurisdiction.
7. In the light of the law laid down in the aforementioned
decisions, respondent Nos.1 to 3 have the solemn duty to
see that the property belonging to the Major Pathiyoor
Kuttikulangra Sree Durga Devi Temple is resumed without
2025:KER:97950
inordinate delay. Therefore, while allowing this review
petition to the extent mentioned above, respondents Nos.1
to 3 are directed to take steps to get the aforementioned
appeal disposed of at the earliest and subject to the result
of the appeal to take necessary action in terms of Exts.P1
and P2, expeditiously."
In the above circumstances, this review petition is also
disposed of, in terms of the directions contained in the order dated
27.09.2024 in R.P.No.1006 of 2024.
Sd/-
ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JUDGE
Sd/-
MURALEE KRISHNA S., JUDGE
MSA
