Kerala High Court Dismisses Iruvaikonam Bhagavathi Temple’s Appeal Seeking Leave To Institute A Suit U/s. 92 CPC Alleging Mismanagement In Temple Trust

The Original Petition was initially allowed, granting leave to the Applicants. However, the High Court set aside this order and the matter was remanded to the Trial Court. The reason for setting aside the order was primarily due to the pending Application to implead supplemental Respondents and the Original Petition was disposed of without considering this Application.

A Single Bench of Justice MA Abdul Hakhim held that “The mismanagement of the Trust created as per Ext.A11 is a matter to be considered in an Application for leave under S. 92 CPC with respect to the affairs of the said Trust. In the present Application for leave with respect to the temple, the necessity of court direction for the administration of the Trust created as per Ext.A11 cannot be considered. The Applicants 2 to 5 are given liberty to file proper Application for leave with respect to the Trust created as per Ext.A11.”

Advocate V.S. Babu Gireesan appeared for the Appellants, while Advocate Arun V.G. represented the Respondents.

Brief Facts

After the remand, the matter was re-heard. The Trial Court then passed the impugned Order dismissing the Application for leave, holding that there is absolutely no pleading to find any of the grounds specified under Section 92 of the CPC and that the applicants are vindicating their personal rights to manage the temple.

Court’s Reasoning

The High Court explained that “The main purpose of S.92 (1) is to give protection to public trusts of a charitable or religious nature from being subjected to harassment by suits being filed against them. By granting leave, the Court does not enter any finding on the rights of the parties. Only prima facie case alone is considered. The following points are to be satisfied by the Court before granting an Application for leave by the Court under S.92 CPC.

• Firstly, satisfaction regarding the existence of a Trust created for public purposes of a charitable or religious nature.
• Secondly, prima facie satisfaction of existence of real, substantive, and existing right of the Applicants in the Trust.
• Thirdly, the satisfaction that there is no lack of bonafides on the part of the Applicants and it is not intended to vindicate individual rights of the parties.
• Fourthly, prima facie satisfaction of existence of either breach of trust or of necessity of direction of the Court for the administration of the Trust.
• Lastly, the reliefs prayed for in the suit shall be for the matters covered under Clause (a) to (h) in S.92 (1) CPC.”

The Court found that the Applicants' claim that Applicants 2 to 5 are "elected representatives of the General Body of the 1st Applicant" was not supported by sufficient averments or evidence. The Application was "silent as to how they became elected representatives" and "the details of the Managing Committee of the Temple are not given".

The Court also noted that "the temple is shown as the 1st Applicant, it is not represented by anybody" and that "Temple cannot come forward to file the suit by its own". Therefore, the Court stated 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 Application would fail on this ground".

Consequently, the Court ordered, “Accordingly, this Appeal is dismissed without costs, but reserving the liberty reserved in favour of the Applicants in the preceding paragraph.”

Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the Appeal.

Cause Title: Iruvaikonam Bhagavathi Temple & Ors. v. State Of Kerala & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025:KER:38929)

Appearance:

Appellants: Advocates V.S. Babu Gireesan and Minnu Darwin

Respondents: Advocates Arun V.G., P.U. Shailajan, V. Jaya Ragi, R. Harikrishnan (Kambisseril) and Neeraj Narayan

Click here to read/download the Judgment