Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 2545 (KER)

Kadasseri Munnila v. Sree Kollakal Poroor Madom Devi Kshethram Upadesaka Samithi

2025-09-23

ANIL K.NARENDRAN, MURALEE KRISHNA S.

body2025
ORDER : Anil K. Narendran, J. The 4 th respondent in W.P.(C)No.2614 of 2016 has filed this review petition, invoking the provisions under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking review of the judgment of this Court dated 12.02.2025 in that writ petition. The said writ petition was one filed by the 1 st respondent herein- petitioner, which is the Temple Advisory Committee of Sree Kollakal Poroor Madom Devi Temple, a temple under the management of the 2 nd respondent Travancore Devaswom Board, seeking the following reliefs; “i. To declare that the Ext.P2 compromise decree is not binding on the deity, petitioner Samithi or the devotees of the temple; ii. a writ of mandamus commanding respondents 1 to 3 to permit the petitioner to perform the Paraeduppu Ezhunillippu of the Kollakal Poroor Madom Devi Temple scheduled to be started from 8 th of Makaram Malayalam month by issuing receipts get sealed by the Devaswom Board; iii. a writ of mandamus commanding respondents 1 to 3 to ensure that the Jeevatha belongs to the temple alone shall be used to take Devi in procession at Paraeduppu Ezhunnullippu; iv. a writ of mandamus to ensure that the entire income from the Paraeduppu Ezhunnullippu of the Devi shall be deposited in the Devaswom to be accounted and to be utilized for the development of the temple.” 2. That writ petition was disposed of by the judgment dated 12.02.2025, making it clear that in view of the provisions contained in the Bye-law (Rules) framed under sub-section (3) of Section 31A of the Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950, the Kshethra Upadeshaka Samithi (Temple Advisory Committee) of Sree Kollakal Poroor Madom Devi Temple cannot either collect or appropriate the amounts paid by the devotees for Paraeduppu, in connection with Paraeduppu Ezhunillipu. Similarly, the 4 th respondent Kadasseri Munnila NSS Karayogam (petitioner herein) cannot also collect or appropriate any amount paid by the devotees for Paraeduppu, in connection with Paraeduppu Ezhunillipu. Any collection of money from the devotees for Paraeduppu can only be against sealed receipts issued by the 2 nd respondent Assistant Devaswom Commissioner (3 rd respondent herein) and the amounts collected from the devotees will have to be credited into the account of the Devaswom. Any collection of money from the devotees for Paraeduppu can only be against sealed receipts issued by the 2 nd respondent Assistant Devaswom Commissioner (3 rd respondent herein) and the amounts collected from the devotees will have to be credited into the account of the Devaswom. Based on the submissions made by the learned counsel for the Kshethra Upadeshaka Samithi (Temple Advisory Committee) of Sree Kollakal Poroor Madom Devi Temple (1 st respondent herein) relief Nos.(i), (ii) and (iv) in W.P.(C)No.2614 of 2016 was dismissed as withdrawn, without prejudice to the right of the Samithi to move the appropriate forum. 3. Heard the learned Senior Counsel for the review petitioner-4 th respondent, the learned counsel for the 1 st respondent-writ petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for Travancore Devaswom Board for respondents 2 to 4 and 13. 4. The learned Senior Counsel for the review petitioner-4 th respondent would contend that the judgment dated 12.02.2025 in W.P.(C)No.2614 of 2016 is liable to be reviewed since the directions contained therein will deprive the right of the review petitioner to conduct Paraeduppu Ezhunillippu of Kollakal Poroor Madom Devi Temple, as conferred by Ext.P2 compromise decree in A.S.No.231 of 2005 on the file of the Additional District Court–I, Mavelikkara. There is error apparent on the face of record and as such the said judgment dated 11.02.2025 is liable to be reviewed. 5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the 1 st respondent-writ petitioner Kshethra Upadeshaka Samithi (Temple Advisory Committee) and also the learned Standing Counsel for Travancore Devaswom Board for respondents 2 to 4 and 13 would contend that none of the grounds raised in the review petition falls within the purview of review jurisdiction of this Court under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and therefore, the review petition is liable to be dismissed. 6. Kollakal Poroor Madom Devi Temple is a temple under the management of the 2 nd respondent Travancore Devaswom Board. The 1 st respondent herein-writ petitioner is the Kshetra Upadeshaka Samithi (Temple Advisory Committee) of Kollakal Poroor Madom Devi Temple, constituted under Section 31A of the Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950. 7. 'Deva' means God and 'swom' means ownership in Sanskrit and the term 'Devaswom' denotes the property of God in common parlance. The 1 st respondent herein-writ petitioner is the Kshetra Upadeshaka Samithi (Temple Advisory Committee) of Kollakal Poroor Madom Devi Temple, constituted under Section 31A of the Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950. 7. 'Deva' means God and 'swom' means ownership in Sanskrit and the term 'Devaswom' denotes the property of God in common parlance. See: Prayar Gopalakrishnan and another v. State of Kerala and others [ 2018 (1) KHC 536 ] 8. 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 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. 9. 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 ] the Apex Court emphasised that it is the duty of the courts to protect and safe- guard the interest and properties of the religious and charitable institutions. 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 therefore is the guardian of the Deity and apart from the jurisdiction under Section 103 of the Land Reforms Act, 1957 viz. the powers of revision, the High Court is having inherent jurisdiction and the doctrine of parens patriae will also apply in exercising the jurisdiction. The High Court therefore is the guardian of the Deity and apart from the jurisdiction under Section 103 of the Land Reforms Act, 1957 viz. the powers of revision, the High Court is having inherent jurisdiction and the doctrine of parens patriae will also apply in exercising the jurisdiction. Therefore, when a complaint has been raised by the Temple Advisory Committee, which was formed by the devotees of the Temple, about the loss of properties of the Temple itself, the truth of the same can be gone into by the High Court in these proceedings. 10. The judgment sought to be reviewed is one rendered by this Court after taking note of the law laid down by this Court in Sunil Kumar C. and others v. Travancore Devaswom Board and others [ 2022 (4) KHC 663 ] , Major Vellayani Devi Temple Advisory Committee v. State of Kerala [2023 (2) KHC 290] , Arjunan T.N. v. President, Temple Advisory Com mittee and others [ 2012 (4) KHC 155 ] and Murukan K.K. v. Travancore Devaswom Board, 2025 (1) KHC SN 17. 11. In Sunil Kumar C. [ 2022 (4) KHC 663 ] a Division Bench of this Court in which one among us [Anil K. Narendran, J.] was a party held that as per Clause (2) of the Bye-law (Rules) framed under sub-section (3) of Section 31A of the Act, one of the objectives of the Temple Advisory Committee is to formulate schemes for the betterment and development of the Temple, submit the same before the Board and execute it with the approval of the Board. The Advisory Committee shall collect donations from the devotees for the smooth functioning of the temple activities and festivals only with the permission of the Department. Clause (18) of the Bye-law prohibits the Temple Advisory Committee from collecting funds in connection with any ceremonies in the temple by placing kanikkavanchi or hundies. When coupons are printed for development activities in the temple, with the approval of the Department, only coupons for the specified amount shall be printed. No receipts without the seal of the Assistant Commissioner shall be used for collecting funds. Therefore, the provisions under Clause (18) of the Bye-law provide sufficient safeguards to prevent the illegal collection of funds by the Temple Advisory Committee for development activities in a temple. 12. No receipts without the seal of the Assistant Commissioner shall be used for collecting funds. Therefore, the provisions under Clause (18) of the Bye-law provide sufficient safeguards to prevent the illegal collection of funds by the Temple Advisory Committee for development activities in a temple. 12. In Major Vellayani Devi Temple Advisory Committee [ 2023 (2) KHC 290 ] this Court held that, in view of the provisions of the Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, the Travancore Devaswom Board is duty bound to see that the regular traditional rites and ceremonies according to the practice prevalent in the temples under its management are performed promptly; and to establish and maintain proper facilities in such temples for the devotees. The Board shall manage the properties and affairs of such temples and arrange for the conduct of the daily worship and ceremonies and of the festivals in the temple according to the usage. The Temple Advisory Committee of a temple under the management of the Travancore Devaswom Board, which consists of devotees who fall under the eligibility criteria prescribed in Clause (3) of the Rules framed under sub-section (3) of Section 31A of the Act, is duty bound to render necessary assistance to the Board and its officials for the smooth functioning of the temple activities and festivals according to the usage. 13. After referring to the law laid down by this Court in Sunil Kumar C. [ 2022 (4) KHC 663 ] and Major Vellayani Devi Temple Advisory Committee [ 2023 (2) KHC 290 ] , in paragraph 20 of the judgment sought to be reviewed, this Court held that the provisions contained in the Bye-law (Rules) framed under sub-section (3) of Section 31A of the Act would not enable the petitioner Kshethra Upadeshaka Samithi (Temple Advisory Committee) of Sree Kollakal Poroor Madom Devi Temple (1 st respondent herein), which is a temple under the management of the 1 st respondent Travancore Devaswom Board (2 nd respondent herein), either to collect or appropriate the amounts paid by the devotees for Paraeduppu, in connection with Paraeduppu Ezhunillipu. The 4 th respondent NSS Karayogam (petitioner herein) cannot also collect or appropriate any amount paid by the devotees for Paraeduppu, in connection with Paraeduppu Ezhunillipu. 14. The 4 th respondent NSS Karayogam (petitioner herein) cannot also collect or appropriate any amount paid by the devotees for Paraeduppu, in connection with Paraeduppu Ezhunillipu. 14. In Arjunan T.N. [ 2012 (4) KHC 155 ] a Division Bench of this Court was dealing with a DBP registered on the basis of TDB Report No.39 of 2011 of the learned Ombudsman on a complaint made by the devotees of Kaippillikkavu Bhagavathi Temple, which is a temple under the management of Travancore Devaswom Board relating to purchase of 20 cents of land in front of that temple, utilising the money collected from the devotees by the Temple Advisory Committee of that temple. The Tantri of the temple inaugurated the collection scheme. One Somanathan, who was dealing with the affairs of the Temple Advisory Committee, and Madhusoodhanan, registered a Trust in the name Sree Bhagavathi Seva Trust and the land was purchased in the name of that Trust utilising the funds collected from the devotees. The registration of the Trust was more than two months after the collection of funds and the property was got conveyed in favour of Madhusoodhanan, Somanathan and Raveendran on behalf of that Trust. The Division Bench held that the acquisition on behalf of Sree Bhagavathi Seva Trust is, obviously, in the form of a dedication to the deity of the temple concerned and such dedication has been made utilising the funds collected from the public at large, that too, by an entity acting on behalf of the people, who were prepared to make such dedication. For such collection, receipts have been issued by the Convenor of the Land Endowment Scheme, a conglomeration of well minded devotees. It has to be presumed that the benefit of such collection is for the purpose of the deity. Under such circumstances, the Division Bench held that the extent of 20 cents of land covered by document No.6540/2006 is an item of property which stands dedicated in favour of the deity and the purchase of the land utilising the amounts was only for the sake of; in favour of; and, in the course of dedication to, the deity. The Travancore Devaswom Board holds all the properties of the temples under its control, in terms of the provisions of the Travancore - Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act. The Travancore Devaswom Board holds all the properties of the temples under its control, in terms of the provisions of the Travancore - Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act. Therefore, the Division Bench declared that the land covered by the aforesaid document and all structures standing thereon vest absolutely in the deity of Kaippallikkavu Bhagavathi Temple and those properties can only be managed by the Travancore Devaswom Board. Any person occupying such property, including Sree Bhagavathi Seva Trust, shall cease to occupy that parcel and it will be exclusively under the management and control of the Travancore Devaswom Board on behalf of the deity. 15. In Murukan K.K. [2025 (1) KHC SN 17] a Division Bench of this Court in which one among us [Anil K. Narendran, J.] held that, in view of the law laid down in Arjunan T.N. [2012 (4) KHC 155] , the collection of funds by the Temple Advisory Committee, based on the approval granted by the Board, against receipts with the seal of the Assistant Commissioner, in connection with the conduct of temple festival or for construction, repair or renovation work in the temple, is collection of money in the name of the deity. The purpose of such collection is for the benefit of the deity. Therefore, the Board has to ensure that the amounts collected by the Temple Advisory Committees in the temples under its management in connection with the conduct of temple festival or for construction, repair or renovation work in the temple, which are credited into the account of the Advisory Committee, are transferred to the Devaswom fund temporarily. Thereafter, adopting the method of issuing payment cheques from the Devaswom fund, on the basis of payment bills prepared by the Maramath wing of the Board, payments can be released to the contractor. If such a procedure is adopted, the supervision of the Maramath wing of the Board will be more effective and the work files can be kept in the Maramath wing, which can be subjected to regular audit by the State Audit Department, annually. 16. If such a procedure is adopted, the supervision of the Maramath wing of the Board will be more effective and the work files can be kept in the Maramath wing, which can be subjected to regular audit by the State Audit Department, annually. 16. After referring to the law laid down by this Court in Arjunan T.N. [ 2012 (4) KHC 155 ] and Murukan K.K. [2025 (1) KHC SN 17] , by the judgment sought to be reviewed, this Court disposed of W.P.(C)No.2614 of 2016, making it clear that in view of the provisions contained in the Bye-law (Rules) framed under sub-section (3) of Section 31A of the Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950, the Kshethra Upadeshaka Samithi (Temple Advisory Committee) of Sree Kollakal Poroor Madom Devi Temple cannot either collect or appropriate the amounts paid by the devotees for Paraeduppu, in connection with Paraeduppu Ezhunillipu. Similarly, the 4 th respondent Kadasseri Munnila NSS Karayogam (petitioner herein) cannot also collect or appropriate any amount paid by the devotees for Paraeduppu, in connection with Paraeduppu Ezhunillipu. Any collection of money from the devotees for Paraeduppu can only be against sealed receipts issued by the 2 nd respondent Assistant Devaswom Commissioner (3 rd respondent herein) and the amounts collected from the devotees will have to be credited into the account of the Devaswom. Therefore, the finding of this Court in the judgment sought to be reviewed is that neither the Kshetra Upadeshaka Samithi (Temple Advisory Committee) of Sree Kollakal Poroor Madom Devi Temple nor Kadasseri Munnila NSS Karayogam cannot collect or appropriate any amount paid by the devotees for Paraeduppu, in connection with Paraeduppu Ezhunillipu. We find absolutely no merits in the contention raised on behalf of the review petitioner that the directions contained in the judgment sought to be reviewed will deprive the right of the review petitioner to conduct Paraeduppu Ezhunillippu of Kollakal Poroor Madom Devi Temple, as conferred by Ext.P2 compromise decree in A.S.No.231 of 2005 on the file of the Additional District Court – I, Mavelikkara, and that there is error apparent on the face of the record, warranting review of the said judgment dated 12.02.2025. 17. 17. In Thungabhadra Industries Ltd v. Government of Andhra Pradesh [ AIR 1964 SC 1372 ] the Apex Court held that, review is, by no means an appeal in disguise, whereby an erroneous decision is reheard and corrected, but lies only for correcting patent errors. 18. In Northern India Caterers (India) Ltd. v. Lt. Governor of Delhi [ (1980) 2 SCC 167 ] the Apex Court held that, if the view adopted by the Court in the original judgment is a possible view, having regard to what the record states; it is difficult to hold that there is error apparent on the face of the record. 19. In Parsion Devi v. Sumitri Devi [(1997) 8 SCC 715] the Apex Court, in the context of the power of review under Order XLVII, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 held that, a judgment may be open to review inter alia if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record. An error which is not self evident and has to be detected by a process of reasoning, can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record justifying the Court to exercise its power of review under Order XLVII, Rule 1 of the Code. In exercise of the jurisdiction under Order XLVII, Rule 1 of the Code, it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be 'reheard and corrected'. A review petition has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be 'an appeal in disguise'. 20. Later, in Lily Thomas v. Union of India [(2006) 3 SCC 224] the Apex Court reiterated that, the power of review can be exercised for correction of a mistake but not to substitute a view. The review cannot be treated like an appeal in disguise. The mere possibility of two views on the subject is not a ground for review. 21. In Anantha Reddy N. v. Anshu Kathuria [(2013) 15 SCC 534] the Apex Court held that, the review jurisdiction is extremely limited and unless there is mistake apparent on the face of the record, the order/judgment does not call for review. The mistake apparent on record means that the mistake is self - evident, needs no search and stares at its face. Surely, review jurisdiction is not an appeal in disguise. The mistake apparent on record means that the mistake is self - evident, needs no search and stares at its face. Surely, review jurisdiction is not an appeal in disguise. The review does not permit rehearing of the matter on merits. 22. In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the decisions referred to supra, the review jurisdiction under Order XLVII, Rule 1 of the Code is very limited and unless there is mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, the judgment does not call for review. Further, whilst exercising such power of review, the Court cannot be oblivious of the provisions contained in Order XLVII, Rule 1 of the Code and that the limits within which the Courts can exercise the power of review have been well settled in a catena of decisions. 23. Viewed in the light of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the decisions referred to supra, none of the grounds raised in this review petition fall within the ambit and scope of Order XLVII, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. In such circumstances, this review petition fails and the same is accordingly dismissed.