Sanchayita Lahkar

The High Court of Kerala Single Bench of Justice M.A. Abdul Hakhim dismissed a first appeal from order challenging the Trial Court's rejection of a leave application under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, filed in relation to the affairs of a temple trust. The Court found that the applicants failed to demonstrate real or substantial interest in the temple's management and noted that the temple trust was not properly represented in the suit. The Court permitted liberty to file a fresh application with proper pleadings, if necessary.

The matter arose from an application filed under Section 92 CPC seeking permission to institute a suit on behalf of a temple named Iruvaikonam Bhagavathi Temple, situated in Thirupuram Village, Neyyattinkara, Thiruvananthapuram. The appellants, who were associated with the temple trust, claimed that there was a lack of proper administration and that a court-framed scheme was necessary for managing temple affairs, including reconstruction of the demolished temple and restoration of regular worship and festivals.

Also Read: Supreme Court Sets Aside High Court Order On Kakiho Village Recognition | Directs Nagaland Government To Reassess Public Objections And Follow Due Process

The trust, named Eruvai Bhagavathi Kshethrayogam Trust, was formed through a registered trust deed dated 14 October 1982 (Ext.A11), following a general body resolution passed on 8 August 1982. As per the trust deed, a managing committee was elected annually for temple administration. The applicants claimed to be elected representatives of the general body. However, they also pleaded that the trust deed did not come into effect due to ensuing litigation.

In a prior suit, O.S. No. 114/1983, certain individuals had sought declaration of title and possession over the temple property. That suit, initially decreed in their favour, was ultimately dismissed by the High Court in S.A. No. 631/2001 through a judgment dated 12 November 2019 (Ext.A1), which confirmed the public character of the temple and recognised the managing committee's role in representing the deity.

After the Second Appeal judgment, the applicants approached the District Collector requesting the key to the temple be handed over to them, citing public interest and the need for temple restoration. Upon inaction, the second applicant filed W.P.(C) No. 3648/2020, but the writ was dismissed with the Court directing the Government to manage law and order issues, not internal trust affairs. This led to further review, appeal, and SLP proceedings, all of which were unsuccessful. Ultimately, the present leave application was filed in O.P. (Trust) No. 5/2022.

Initially, the Trial Court granted leave by order dated 6 December 2023, without considering an impleadment application (I.A. No. 2/2023) by proposed additional respondents 7 and 8. This prompted the High Court, in O.P.(C) No. 463/2024, to set aside that order and remand the matter for fresh consideration. Upon re-hearing, and after impleading the additional respondents, the Trial Court dismissed the application holding that the necessary grounds under Section 92 CPC were not pleaded and the suit was an attempt to vindicate personal rights.

Before the High Court, the appellants contended that the Trial Court's initial findings in favour of leave, which were not reversed by the High Court in its remand order, still held force. They maintained that temple mismanagement was evident, no festivals or poojas were conducted, and the public interest necessitated judicial intervention. The respondents, including office bearers of the trust, argued that the trust had been managing affairs as per the registered deed and that the applicants lacked authority or standing. The State took a neutral stand, citing only its concern for law and order.

The Court stated: "The contention of the Counsel for the appellants that the findings in the original order of the Trial Court still subsists... is unsustainable for the reason that once an order is set aside by this Court all findings therein also go..."

On the standard under Section 92 CPC, the Court observed: "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..." It further recorded: "Only prima facie case alone is considered..."

The Court laid out the five conditions necessary for leave:

1. "Satisfaction regarding the existence of a Trust created for public purposes of a charitable or religious nature."

2. "Prima facie satisfaction of existence of real, substantive, and existing right of the Applicants in the Trust."

3. "Satisfaction that there is no lack of bonafides on the part of the Applicants..."

4. "Prima facie satisfaction of existence of either breach of trust or of necessity of direction of the Court for the administration of the Trust."

5. "Reliefs prayed for in the suit shall be for the matters covered under Clause (a) to (h) in S.92 (1) CPC."

The Court stated: "The Application is silent as to how they became elected representatives... When there is no evidence to show that the Applicants 2 to 5 are the elected representatives... their claim... fails."

Further, the Court recorded: "Though the temple is shown as the 1st Applicant, it is not represented by anybody... Temple should be represented by a natural and living person."

The Court rejected the claim that the Applicants had real and substantial interest, noting: "The Applicants 2 to 5 have no case that they are the devotees of the temple... their specific contention is that the Trust has not come into effect."

Also Read: Petitioners Were Acting Pursuant To Division Bench Judgment | J&K High Court Quashes FIR And Magistrate’s Order In Eviction Row

On the need for proper pleadings, the Court stated: "The application is vague... The Applicants did not plead the system of managing the temple before and after the creation of Ext.A11 Trust Deed."

Finally, the Court found: "A scheme cannot be framed... ignoring Ext.A11 Trust Deed... The Applicants 2 to 5 are given liberty to file proper Application for leave with respect to the Trust created as per Ext.A11."

The Court concluded: "Accordingly, this Appeal is dismissed without costs, but reserving the liberty reserved in favour of the Applicants in the preceding paragraph."

The preceding paragraph stated: "The Applicants 2 to 5 are given liberty to file proper Application for leave with respect to the Trust created as per Ext.A11."

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Appellants: Shri V.S. Babu Gireesan, Smt. Minnu Darwin, Advocates

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

For the State: Smt. Rekha C. Nair, Senior Government Pleader

Case Title: Iruvaikonam Bhagavathi Temple & Ors. v. State of Kerala & Ors.

Neutral Citation: 2025:KER:38929

Case Number: FAO No. 53 of 2025

Bench: Justice M.A. Abdul Hakhim

[Read/Download order]