Enables Grievance Redressal Without Instuting Suit: Kerala HC Explains 'Partial Restraint' U/S 55 Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act

The Kerala High Court recently elaborated the ambit and scope of 'partial restraint' against the institution of suits within the period of advance notice in writing, envisaged under Section 55 of the Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950 ('Act, 1950'). 

Section 55 (1) of the Act, 1950 stipulates that "no suit shall be instituted against the board or the executive officer of the Sri Padmanabhaswarny Temple until the expiration of two months after a notice in writting has been delivered or left at the office of the Board, or of the Executive Officer, as the case may be, stating the cause of action, the relief sought, and the name and place of abode of the intending plaintiff and the plaint shall contain a statement that such notice has been so delivered or left".

Clause (2) of Section 55 states that, "notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, suits or other proceedings by or against the Executive Office of the Sri Padmanabhaswamy Temple or the Travancore Devaswom Board shall be instituted in the District Court having local jurisdiction."

Justice P. Somarajan observed that the normal principle is that there cannot be any restraint against the institution of litigation before a civil court.

He however added that the same was subject to two exceptions, namely, a debarring provision by which the jurisdiction of a civil court is ousted and vested with some other court or authority by providing equal and efficacious remedy under any special enactment, and a partial restraint imposing a condition to be complied with before institution of the suit. 

Explaining the scope of 'partial restraint', the Court said, 

"A partial restraint imposing a condition to be complied with before institution of a suit is normally intended to avoid unwarranted litigation and to provide an opportunity to the proposed defendant to address the grievance of the proposed plaintiff and is resting on a different pedestal apart from the complete restraint/bar with equal and efficacious remedy. In short, for a complete bar, equal and efficacious remedy should be provided. Likewise, even in the case of partial bar, there should be provision to address the grievance of proposed petitioner by way of any urgent or immediate relief. Normally, partial restraint is to give an opportunity to the proposed defendant/respondent to redress the grievance without institution of a particular suit". 

The Court, on perusal of Section 55 of the Act, 1950, does not address the vital requirement for providing remedy by way of any urgent or immediate relief, unlike in Section 80 CPC which provides for the same in (2). 

The Court discerned that the broad principle behind such a provision was to ensure that no one would be left without legal remedy.

"Postponement or adjournment of a legal remedy under any statute is not permissible if it offends the valuable right of a litigation, unless it provides an alternative measure to redress any grievance by way of immediate or urgent relief. In other words, the provision should strike a balance by providing an alternative remedy to meet urgent and immediate relief without which there cannot be any partial restraint under the guise of any condition precedent to be complied with for the institution of the suit," it said. 

It thus found that Section 55 of the Act, 1950 was bad in law on this ground, and declared that it would be within the permissible limit of the court to do justice to the parties by exercising the inherent power under Section 151 C.P.C. and grant leave to institute a suit overriding the effect of Section 55 of the Act, if it is found to be necessary for protecting the interest of a litigant by way of any immediate or urgent relief. 

The Court emphasized that the prohibition in instituting the suit for a particular period mandating a notice in advance ought to address the issue of urgent or immediate relief necessary to protect the interest of any party before the expiry of the period of notice or prohibition thereof, lest the provision fall under the mischief of denying justice and violate equality before the law as enshrined under the Constitution. 

It added that the bar under Section 55 of the Act, 1950 also cannot be understood as a complete bar, but that the same would only operate with respect to matters coming under the purview of the said Act. 

"The bar in instituting the suit must be understood pertaining to the matters, which would come under the purview of that particular enactment viz., Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950, unless the context otherwise says. It may not have any application pertaining to a suit enforcing an individual civil right other than the one dealt under the special enactment. Hence, the “cause of action” and “relief sought” incorporated under that provision stands for a matter which is dealt under the special enactment," it said. 

The Court thus held that a suit for the enforcement of an individual civil right against the board or the executive officer would not stand hit by the partial restraint under Section 55 of the Act, 1950. 

In the present case, as the question of maintainability of the suit had been taken up 12 years after the institution of the suit, the Court found that the same ought to have been agitated at the first instance. It added that the bar under Section 55 of the Act would also not be applicable in the present case and restored the suit on the file of the trial court. 

The plea was thus disposed of. 

Counsel for the Petitioners: Advocates R. Ranjanie and R. Lakshmi Narayan

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 739 

Case Title: Ramachandran Potty & Anr. v. Travancore Devaswom Board & Ors. 

Case Number: OP(C) NO. 2704 OF 2023

Click Here To Read/Download The Judgment