Execution Proceedings Initiated Against Idol Liable To Be Set Aside When Deity/Public Temple Not Made Party To Suit: Kerala High Court

The Kerala High Court has held that execution proceedings initiated against an idol and its property are liable to be set aside when the deity or a public temple is not made a party to the suit. 

Justice P Somarajan while allowing an appeal stated: 

"The binding nature of the suit or the decree passed in compliance with Order I Rule 8 C.P.C. must be understood as binding on only those persons in whose behalf the suit was instituted or defended in a representative capacity having the "same interest" and none else. The deity or the public temple was not made as a party to the suit and no leave was obtained to institute a suit in a representative capacity as against the idol or the public temple, though the idol would constitute a jural and legal entity as a perpetual minor. Since the devotees are numerous, a fluctuating body, in order to institute or defend a suit against the deity or idol, leave has to be obtained under Order I Rule 8 C.P.C., for which, the deity or idol should be in the party array and the suit must be one either by the idol or against the idol represented by a competent person."  

While issuing the Order, the Court also directed the Registry to forward a copy to the Directorate of Training attached to the High Court for future guidance while imparting training to the judicial officers. 

Advocate Narendra Kumar appeared for the appellants, while the respondents were represented by Advocate Sadchith P. Kurup in the appeal.

Facts:

Two devotees of a public temple representing a deity by the name Sree Khandakarna Kshethram moved a petition under Order XXI Rule 97 CPC obstructing the delivery of a portion of property belonging to the deity in the execution of a money decree.

However, it was dismissed by the trial court on the ground that no document was produced by the petitioners to show their right, title or interest over the property to obstruct the delivery. 

Aggrieved by such dismissal, the devotees approached the High Court. 

Findings:

The Court thereby noted that the fundamental principles governing a perpetual minor and competency of a devotee to represent the deity in legal proceedings, the binding force of a decree against a perpetual minor or the legal entity of an idol in a public temple, though raised, were not even considered in the impugned order. 

"It is unfortunate that the officer (Sub Judge concerned) did not even go into the abovesaid issues or understand the dispute involved in the petition, but dismissed the same on an extraneous ground that none of the claim petitioners produced any document of their right, title or interest to obstruct delivery."

Primarily, a decree was sought to be executed against the property held by a public temple and the idol thereof. However, neither the public temple nor the idol was made as a party to the suit or the decree. 

The Court noted that it was a money decree against two unincorporated associations named after the temple viz., Sree Khandakarna Kshethrayogam and Sreepadam Funds. Since they were unregistered and unincorporated associations, leave was granted to institute the suit under Order I Rule 8 CPC.

The decree-holder (respondent herein) argued that since there is a publication under Order I Rule 8 CPC., the petitioners are bound by the decree although the idol or the public temple was not made as a party to the suit or the decree thereof. This contention was overlooked by the Sub-Judge. 

The Court, therefore, looked into the purpose of Order I Rule 8 CPC ad found that it was to give notice to all interested persons when there are numerous persons having the same interest in one suit. The expression "on behalf of" incorporated in Rule 8(1) of Order I C.P.C. must be appreciated and understood in relation to the words "having the same interest in one suit". 

"Order I Rule 8 C.P.C. would operate only against a person, who is having the same interest as that of a person, who was permitted to either institute a suit or defend a suit in a representative capacity and it will not have any operation or binding force to any other person who is having different interest. Necessarily, the binding nature of the suit or the decree, if any, passed therein in compliance with Order I Rule 8 C.P.C. must be understood as binding on only those persons in whose behalf the suit was instituted or defended in a representative capacity having the "same interest" and none else".

However, in the present case, the deity or the public temple was not made as a party to the suit and no leave was obtained to institute a suit in a representative capacity as against the idol or the public temple, though the idol would constitute a jural and legal entity as a perpetual minor.

Since the devotees are numerous, in order to institute or defend a suit against the deity or idol, the said conditions ought to have been met.

Yet not only was the deity or the temple not found in the party array, but two unincorporated associations named after the temple were also made defendants. Since it is a money decree against the abovesaid two unincorporated associations, it would bind only on the persons who are the members of the unincorporated associations or having interest thereof.

Further, it was noted that the Court failed to consider a settlement deed by which the prior owners of the family temple entrusted the temple and its properties to the public for the welfare of the deity and its devotees.

"Hence the money decree against two unincorporated associations, though named after the deity, cannot be executed against the deity or the idol. It is so strange enough that the court below observed that PW1 obstructed the delivery, even though he is not a member of the Executive Committee and had admitted that the temple is being managed by the administrative committee."

The Bench also recalled the well-settled legal principle; even a  worshipper or a devotee can maintain a legal proceeding when there is a failure on the part of the administrative committee or the committee constituted for its administration or on a breach of trust.

Hence, the resistance and obstruction offered by the petitioners are lawful as the decree cannot be executed against the properties of idols, who are not bound by the decree. The execution proceedings initiated against the idol and its property were accordingly found liable to be set aside.

As such, the Court held that the dismissal of the application under Order XXI Rule 97 C.P.C. against the petitioners cannot be sustained. The appeal was allowed accordingly.

Case Title: T. Madhu & Anr. v. K.K. Suresh & Ors.

Click Here To Read/Download The Order