Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

LEELA ANTHARJANAM versus DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


LEELA ANTHARJANAM v. DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER - WP(C) No. 28340 of 2006(W) [2007] RD-KL 10269 (14 June 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 28340 of 2006(W)

1. LEELA ANTHARJANAM,
... Petitioner

2. UMESH V. BHATTATHIRI,

Vs

1. DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER,
... Respondent

2. THE SECRETARY, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM

3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,

4. THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER,

5. KRISHNAN NAMBOOTHIRI,

For Petitioner :SRI.V.GIRI

For Respondent :SRI.D.SOMASUNDARAM

The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR

Dated :14/06/2007

O R D E R

K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, J.

W.P.(C) No.28340 of 2006-W

Dated this the 28340 day of June, 2007.



J U D G M E N T

The first petitioner is the mother of the second petitioner. The first petitioner who is the daughter of Sri. Parameswaran Namboodiri, the former Thanthri of Harippad Subramanya Swami Temple claims that her son, the second petitioner should be appointed as the Thanthri of that Temple. This claim is based on the fact that she has no brothers. But, her father, the former Thanthri has elected one of his sons-in-laws Sri. Krishnan Namboodiri as his successor and all his rights in relation to the Temple has been transferred to the said person. Based on that assignment, the Devaswom Board has recognised Sri.Krishnan Namboodiri as the Thanthri of the temple since 1996. The claim raised by the first petitioner on behalf of her son, the second petitioner was not accepted by the Devaswom Board in view of the appointment of Sri.Krishnan Namboodiri. Pursuant to the direction of this Court, her claim was considered by the Devaswom Board and rejected it by Ext.P3 order dated 13-10-2006. This writ petition is filed challenging that order.

2. The respondents would submit that the point that arises for WPC No.28340 of 2006 2 decision in this case is a civil dispute which can be adjudicated appropriately by the competent Civil Court.

3. I find considerable force in the submission of the respondents. The dispute involved in this case has to be decided by the competent Civil Court. It is ordered that the findings of the Devaswom Board in Ext.P3 will not bind the petitioner or the respondents while contesting the civil suit and the Devaswom Board will be bound to follow the decision of the Civil Court concerning the appointment of Thanthri. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR,

JUDGE.

MS


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.