PAYAPPAR SREE DHARMASASTHA TEMPLE A. COM. versus A.K. JOSSEPH & ORS.

Citation: [2009] 10 S.C.R. 762 · Decided: 07-07-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2009] 10 S.C.R. 762 
PAYAPPAR SREE DHARMASASTHA TEMPLE A. COM. 
v. 
A.K. JOSSEPH & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 4138 of 2009) 
JULY 7, 2009 
[S.B. SINHA AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, JJ.] 
Travancore Cochin Hindu Religious Institution Act, 1950: 
s. 27 - Administration of temples - Respondent 1 obtained a 
C decree of declaration of his rights in temple properties in 1958 
by filing a suit in which Board was not made party - Suit filed 
by Board in 1998 claiming to be owner of the temple 
properties - Dismissed in view of earlier decree obtained by 
respondent 1 - Held : The decree of 1958 was not binding 
O and effective against the Board since it was necessary party 
and was not arrayed as party - High Court had not 
appreciated the evidence on. record - Matter remitted to High 
Court for fresh consideration - High Court to dispose of the 
proceedings expeditiously. 
E 
The Travancore Devaswom Board was constituted to 
look after the management of property of the appellant-
temple. The appellant was a body constituted by the 
Board. There were large track of land belonging to the 
temple. A part of land was allegedly encroached by the 
F predecessor of respondent no.1. In 1958, the 
predecessor of respondent 1 filed a suit for declaration 
of his rights in the suit land. In the suit, the Board was 
not impleaded as a party. 
G 
The trial Court decreed the suit which remained 
unchallenged. In 1998, the Board filed a suit against 
respondent 1 for eviction from the suit land. However, the 
trial court dismissed the suit in view of earlier decree 
obtained by respondent 1. The Board filed appeal against 
H 
762 
' 
• 
PAYAPPAR SREE DHARMASASTHA TEMPLE A: COM. v. 763 
A.K. JOSSEPH 
~ 
the order of trial court. A complaint was filed on behalf A 
of the temple alleging trespass by respondent 1, invoking 
supervisory powers of High Court under Travancore 
Cochin Hindu Religious Institution Act, 1950. Since two 
proceedings were pending before High Court, one for 
exercise of supervisory powers and appeal against order 
B 
of trial court, both were heard together. 
The records showed that in 1929, the State 
Government transferred the suit land in favour of 
predecessor of respondent 1. However, in 1931, the State c 
Government rectified the position and set aside the 
previous order of 1929 of transfer ot suit land. The same 
was challenged by predecessor of respondent 1 in 1998 
making only State Government a party without making 
the temple authorities party to the suit. The Munsif Court 
D 
decreed the suit on the ground that the Dewan had no 
jurisdiction to pass the order. 
High Court whi~h exercised supervisory powers 
under 1950 Act directed that report be given by Tehsildar. 
Based on the report submitted, High Court passed an 
E 
order directing State Government to evict the illegal 
occupants. The property was handed over to Board after 
evicting respondent 1. 
The appellant filed the present appeal before this 
F 
Court contending that courts below failed to consider the 
documents and decreed the suit filed by respondent 1 
only on the ground that the earlier suit filed by 
predecessor of respondent 1 was decreed in his favour, 
but totally ignored the fact that in the said suit even the 
G 
appellant or the Board were not made party and, 
I-
therefore, the said decree was neither binding nor 
effective against the Board and the temple authorities. 
Respondent 1 contested the appeal contending that 
H 
764 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2009] 10 S.C.R. 
A it was not maintainable on the ground that an earlier SLP 
filed by Board was dismissed on account of delay. 
Partly allowing the appeal and remitting the matter of 
High Court, the Court 
B 
HELD : 1.1. After coming into force of Travancore 
Cochin Hindu Religious Institution Act, 1950, the 
administration of temples and all their properties and 
funds, except the Sree Padmanabhaswami Temple got 
vested in the Travancore Board. Section 27 of the Act 
c states that the immovable properties entered or classed 
in the revenue records as Devaswom property, which is 
in the possession or enjoyment of the Devaswom 
effective from 12th April, 1922 shall be dealt with as 
Devaswom Properties. In the suit filed by the Board, a 
D number of documents were placed on record relating to 
the land in question but High Court came to the 
conclusion that the Board could not produce any 
document to show that the schedule property belonged 
to the Board. [Paras 13 and 14) [773-E-G

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