Case title:
T. Madhu & Anr. v. K. K. Suresh & Ors.
Date of Order:
26th August, 2023
Bench:
Hon’ble Mr. Justice P. Somarajan
Parties:
Appellant: T. Madhu
Respondent: K. K. Suresh
SUBJECT
This appeal is filed by the appellant to challenge the judgment passed by the Sub Court, Alappuzha. The High Court of Kerala overturned the order passed by the Sub Court, Alappuzha and allowed the appeal filed by the appellant.
IMPORTANT PROVISIONS
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
- Order XXI Rule 97
- Order I Rule 8
- Order I Rule 8 (1)
BRIEF FACT
- In this case, two devotees of a public temple representing the deity named as Sree Khandakarna Kshethram filed petition under Order XXI Rule 97 CPC to obstruct the delivery of a portion of property owned by the deity in execution of a money decree.
- Because the petitioners failed to submit any documentation demonstrating their right, title, or interest in the land, the Sub Judge dismissed the petition.
- The petitioners brought up various legal concerns, including the deity's representation in court by a devotee, the legality of an idol in a public temple, and the legality of an order against a perpetual minor (referring to the idol).
- The petition was denied by the Sub Judge on the grounds that no evidence had been shown to support the petitioners' right to hinder delivery, Later, the appeal filed by the petition in the High Court of Kerala.
ISSUES RAISED
- Whether the obstruction of the delivery of a portion of property belonging to the deity (Sree Khandakarna Kshethram) in the execution of a money decree is valid or not?
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE APPELLANT
- The Learned Counsel on the behalf of the appellant argued that, the Sub Judge erred in dismissing their petition and did not take significant legal principles into account.
- It was also argued that they have the authority to obstruct the delivery of the property since they are representing the deity as devotees.
- Additionally, Learned Counsel contend that the edict should not apply to the deity or the temple because it forbade unincorporated associations. They emphasize the legal status of the idol and the need for permission before suing a deity. They believe that a settlement deed backs up their position and that even worshippers have the right to legal action in the event of an oversight or violation of trust.
- Therefore, the Learned Counsel requested that the execution proceedings be set aside and their application be allowed.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE RESPONDEN
- The Learned Counsel on the behalf of respondent contends that as the claim petitioners failed to offer any proof of their rights or interests, they lack the legal authority to obstruct the property delivery. Not the temple or idol, but unincorporated associations are the subject of the decree currently in effect.
- By virtue of the publishing mandated by Order I Rule 8 C.P.C., the claim petitioners are bound by the decree. The Learned Counsel also mentioned that the Order I Rule 8 C.P.C. is misinterpreted by the claim petitioners. It does not apply to those with interests that are not like those of the representative party.
- It was also argued that, the decree cannot be executed against the idol's goods because the temple, idol, or public trust were not made parties to the lawsuit. Petitioners' blocking of the claim is unwarranted. Further, learned counsel also mentioned that the settlement document of settlement deed, which establishes the temple's trust and the properties' purpose for the deity and followers, was not taken into consideration. Based on this document, the money decree cannot be carried out against the deity or idol.
JUDGEMENT ANALYSIS
- The court denied the petition filed by two temple devotees who sought to prevent the enforcement of a money judgement against the property of the temple. The lack of documentation supporting the devotees' right to obstruct was addressed by the court.
- However, the court did not consider crucial factors like the idol's legal standing and the devotees' right to act as the deity's representatives.
- The dismissal was overturned on appeal, stating that the decree could not be executed against the idol or its properties. The court ordered a copy of the judgment to be provided to the Directorate of Training for future guidance.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, the court allowed the appeal filed by two devotees of a public temple, overturning the dismissal of their petition to obstruct the delivery of property in execution of a money decree. The court recognized the legal standing of the idol and the devotees' right to represent the deity in legal proceedings. It emphasized that the decree could not be enforced against the idol or its properties. The court's judgment has provided guidance for future training of judicial officers.
Click here to download the original copy of the judgement
