A.A. GOPALAKRISHNAN versus COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD AND ORS.

Citation: [2007] 9 S.C.R. 1 · Decided: 19-07-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.G. BALAKRISHNAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

~-
. ~ 
A.A. GOPALAKRISHNAN 
v. 
COCHIN DEV ASWOM BOARD AND ORS. 
JULY 19, 2007 
[K.G. BALAKRISHNAN,CJ., R.V. RA VEENDRAN 
AND DAL VEER BHANDARI, JJ.] 
A 
B 
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908-0. 23 r, 3A-Land of religious 
institution-Complaint by devotee against employee of Dewaswom Board C 
and others-Alleging encroachment on the land-Direction by Supreme Court 
to the Board to take possession of the land, with liberty to the encroachers 
to file suit for declaration of their title-In suit by encroachers settlement of 
exchange of land in question with another land claimed to be owned by the 
employee-On the strength of ex-parte order of Tehsi/dar declaring him as D 
'cultivating tenant', suit decreed in terms of compromise-Another land was 
throughout in possession of the temple having structures of idols-Writ petition 
challenging the compromise by a devotee, dismissed by High Court-On 
appeal, Held: Compromise decree is unsustainable-Though a compromise 
decree of a civil court which has attained finality cannot be interfered with--
But challenge to such decree cannot be rejected when fraud/collusion on the E 
part of statutory Board is made out-It is duty of the Court to protect the 
properties of religious and charital)/e institutions from wrongful claims or 
misappropriation-Trust and Charities. 
The land in question belonged to a temple under the management of 
respondent no. 1-Devaswom Board. A third party filed a complaint alleging F 
that respondent Nos. 3 and 4 ha~ encroached upon the said land and were in 
illegal possession of the same. High Court, in a summary proceeding held 
that the land in question was part of the property of the temple and directed 
the respondent-Board to take possession thereof. In appeal, this Court 
confirmed the order of High Court. However, i~ gave liberty to respondent Nos. G 
3 and 4 to establish their title in a regular suit • 
Respondent Nos. 3 to 5 filed a suit against the Board seeking declaration 
of title in respect of the land in question. However, they entered into a 
compromise of exchange of the land in dispute with another piece of land No. 
I 
H 
2 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2007) 9 S.C.R. 
/:: 1043 which was in the po~~sion. ?f.the,te~ple and title to which was claimed 
by respondent No. 3. The suit was decreed in terms of the compromise. 
The appellant~a third partY challenged the compronjise in a writ petition, 
alleging the same to be collusiye as th~ land exchanged ~}.th the land in . 
B question was not the land of res'pondent No. 3, but of the temple which was 
.z:~ 
situated in front of the temple having three idols and had always been in 
possession oHhe'.femple. Writ pe'tition was di~missed by High Court. 
c 
D 
In appeal to this'C::ourt, respondent Nos. 3 to S filed a copy of order of 
Tehsildar to establish their title on land No. 1043. 
.... ·: 'Appell~~t cont~nded that the very fact that the third .r~spo~dent (an 
e.fiployee·orthe temple) has been shpwn to be cultivating tenant of the land in 
.front oft'h'e .temple' c;ontaining the st~uctures of idols, in a suo motu 
p·;~ceedirigs, demonstrated collusion and fraud. 
. 
. 
~~ 
~· 
.\• 
. 
. 
' 
~ 
~ 
~. 'AlloWing the appeal~· the Court 
:HELD: L The bar contained in Rule 3A of Order 23 CPC, will notcome 
in.the way of the High Court examining the validity of a compromise decre~, 
when~11UegaOoits of fraud/collusion are m£de agains·ra statutory authority 
. which,ent.ered into such comprorii'ise. While, it .is true that decrees of civil 
E courts which·have·attained finality should not be hlterfered lightly; challenge 
to such compromise decrees by an aggrieved devotee, who was not a patty to 
the suit;' cannot be rejected, where fraud/collusion on the part ofofficers of a 
statutory board is made out. Further, when the High Court had directed the 
Board to take possession of the land in question immediately from respondents 
3 and 4 in a complaint by another devotee, it was improper for the Board to . 
~- enter info a·setfleilient with respondents No. 2 and J, givi~g up the right, title 
• an<I in'terest in tile la~d in question without the permission of.the court wti.ich. 
p!rssed'·such~rde~.~-Viewed from any angle, thecompromise.dee~ee cannot b~ 
sustained and is liable to be set'aSide. {Para llj ,17:C, D, Ef 
. 
. . 
·7,..·~·r..,~ 
'·"• 
.~__..~" 
G ·, ·. ·. 2. The properties of deities, temples and Devaswom Boards, require to 
be .protected and safeguarded .by their Trustees/Archaks/Sebaits/employe

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.