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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
2025:KER:54573
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure 1 COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT DATED 11/10/2012 IN RP
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
2025:KER:54573
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
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
Annexure A5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT FILED BY
THE 1ST REVIEW PETITIONER IN O.P.(TRUST) NO.5/2022
