4th Edition 2010 Volume 3 Page 3076; it was held that:
"The term Hindu is defined for the application of Hindu
Law as a person includes not only; those who are Hindu by
religion; but also those who are commonly known as such."
12. MULLA's Principles of Hindu Law (Fourteenth
Edition) paragraph 671 was relied on by the Supreme
Court in C.W.T. v. R.Sridharan [(1976) 4 SCC 489]; wherein
it was held in paragraph 17 that:
"The word 'Hindu' does not denote any
particular religion or community. During the last
hundred years and more it has been a nomenclature
used to refer comprehensively to various categories of
people for purposes of personal law. It has been
applied to dissenters and non-conformists and even to
those who have entirely repudiated Brahminism. It
has been applied to various sects and beliefs which at
various periods and in circumstances developed out
of, or spit off from, the Hindu system but whose
members have nevertheless continued to live under
the Hindu Law and the Courts have generally put a
liberal construction upon enactments relating to the
personal law applicable to Hindus."
13. Dr. Whitely Stocks has pointed out that:
"The collocation of the words Hindu, Mahomedian, or
Budhish makes it reasonably plain that the term Budhish
makes it reasonably plain that the term Hindu is used as
theological terms and denotes only persons, who profess
any faith of the Brahminical religion or the religion of
Puranas."
14. In Shastri Yagnapurushdasji v. Muldas
Bhundardas Vaishya [AIR 1996 SC 1119] it was held that:
"The historical and etymological genesis of the word
"Hindu" has given rise to a controversy among indologists,
but the view generally accepted by scholars appears to be
that the word "Hindu" is derived from the river Sindhu
otherwise known as Indus which flows from the Punjab.
"That part of the great Aryan race", says Monier Willaims,
"Which immigrated from Central Asia, through the
mountain passes into India, settled first in the district near
the river Sindhu (now called the Indus). The Persians
pronounced this word Hindu and named their Aryan
brethren Hindus. The Greeks, who probably gained their
first ideas of India from the Persians, dropped the hard
aspirate and called the Hindus "INDOI". The
Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics, Vol.VI has described
Hinduism as the title applied to that form of religion which
prevails among the vast majority of the present population
of the Indian Empire."
15. In Commissioner, H.R.C.E. Mysore v.
Ratnavarma Heggde [(1977) 1 SC 525] in paragraph 43; it
was held that:
"The term 'Hindu' has a fairly wide connotations. In
origin it indicated people living in the Indus region. It is
only by subsequent usage and extension of meaning that
the word acquired a religious sense, therefore in this
sense, a more limited significance. The term 'Hindu'
though not defined in the Act, may be presumed to stand
for people of India with certain religious beliefs held or
forms of religious worship practised by people of India
originally."
16. In Bail Patil v. Union of India [AIR 2005 SC
3172]; it was held that:
"The word 'Hindu' conveys the image of diverse
groups of communities living in India. A 'Hindu' can be
identified only on the basis of his caste as an upper caste,
Brahmin, Kshatriya or Vaish or of lower caste described in
ancient India as shudras. The aboriginals who have no
caste were considered as distinct from four castes or
varnas of Hindu society and they have been treated in the
constitution as scheduled Tribes and the Shudras are
included in the Constitution as Scheduled Castes with
special privileges and treatment for their upliftment."
17. In M.P.Gopalkrishnan Nair v. State of Kerala,
[AIR 2005 SC 3053]; it was held that:
"A 'Hindu' may or may not be a person professing
Hindu religion or a believer in temple worship. A Hindu has
a right to choose his own method of worship. The term
'Hindu' is a comprehensive expression giving the widest
freedom to people of all hues, opinions, philosophies and
beliefs to come within its fold."
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
FRIDAY, THE 10TH DAYOF JULY 2015
OP(C).No. 1103 of 2014 (O)
V.M. SASI, S/O.VELUTHEDATHU MANI,
KISHORE, S/O.KURUPPALATH GANGADEVI,
B.KEMAL PASHA, J.
Can a person belongs to the sect of
'Veluthedathu Nair' be treated as 'Nair' and can he be
treated as a 'Malayalee Savarna Hindu' within the meaning
of Exhibit P4 By-laws of the 'Paramekkavu Devaswom'?
2. The 3rd defendant in O.S.No.2628 of 2013 of the
Munsiff's Court, Thrissur is the petitioner herein. The suit is
one filed by the 1st respondent as plaintiff for a decree of
mandatory injunction for the removal of the name of the
petitioner herein, who is the 3rd defendant, from the
membership register of the Paramekkavu Devaswom, on
the ground that the 3rd defendant, who belongs to
'Veluthedan' caste is not coming within the definition of
'Savarna Hindu' and therefore, he is not qualified and
entitled to be a member of the 'Paramekkavu Devaswom'.
Along with the suit, Exhibit P1 I.A. No.10026 of 2013 was
filed seeking an order of temporary injunction, thereby
restraining the 3rd defendant from participating in any of the
trusts, committees or administrative body of the
'Paramekkavu Devaswom', or from contesting the election
to any of such bodies or to be a member in any of such
bodies. Even though the petitioner and defendants 1 and 2
have seriously challenged the said I.A. through counter
affidavit, the court below, through Exhibit P5 order, allowed
the I.A., thereby restraining the petitioner herein, through an
order of temporary injunction, from contesting the election
and from holding any post in the new governing body of the
'Paramekkavu Devaswom'.
3. The petitioner has challenged Exhibit P5 order,
through C.M.A.No.119 of 2013 before the District Court,
Thrissur. The learned Ist Additional District Judge, Thrissur
has approved the findings entered by the trial court in
Exhibit P5 and has virtually recited the order and dismissed
the C.M.A., through Exhibit P6 judgment. The said judgment
is under challenge.
4. Heard Adv.Sri.Dinesh R. Shenoy, the learned
counsel for the petitioner, Adv.Sri. Anchal C. Vijayan, the
learned counsel for the 1st respondent and Adv.Sri.M.
Ramesh Chander, the learned Standing Counsel for
respondents 2 and 3.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed
out that the petitioner has been a member of the committee
of the 'Paramekkavu Devaswom', right from the year 1987
onwards and he has officiated as leader of many of the
committees of the 'Paramekkavu Devaswom' and he has
been actively in the leadership for conducting the 'Thrissur
Pooram' Festival every year, for the last many years. It is
also pointed out that he is the elected Vice President of the
'Paramekkavu Devaswom'. It is argued that he is a
'Malayalee Savarna Hindu' within the meaning of Clause 3
of Exhibit P4 By-laws of the 'Paramekkavu Devaswom'. It is
further argued that, in order to enter into a finding that such
a person cannot be treated as a 'Malayalee Savarna Hindu',
both the courts below have limited the consideration of the
aspect by placing heavy reliance on the fact that the sect of
'Veluthedathu Nairs' are being treated as an Other
Backward Community in the case of Government
appointments, appointments to public sector undertakings,
and in the matter of eduction, based on the constitutional
perspective. According to the learned counsel for the
petitioner, such a view taken by both the courts below is
apparently unfounded and incorrect. It is also argued that
such a view is not palatable or digestible in this 21st century,
when we had wiped out the most accursed system of
untouchability from this great Nation. The said arguments
have been fully endorsed and supported by the learned
counsel for respondents 2 and 3.
6. Per contra, the learned counsel for the 1st
respondent has argued that the petitioner being a
'Veluthedathu Nair' is of a lower caste when compared to
'Nairs' and at any stretch of imagination, the petitioner
cannot be treated as a 'Malayalee Savarna Hindu'. It is
argued that it is a very special provision mentioned in the
By-laws for a qualification to become a member of the
'Paramekkavu Devaswom' that he should be a 'Malayalee
Savarna Hindu'. It is also argued by the learned counsel for
the 1st respondent that as per 'Kuzhikkattu Pacha', which is
the 'Thanthrik' text being educated to persons becoming
'Thanthris', in case of entry of 'Veluthedathu Nair,
Vilakkithala Nair' etc. near to the place of the sanctum
sanctorum in a temple, it would result in desecrating the
temple, and in such cases, the purification or sublimation of
the temple have to be done. Therefore, according to the
learned counsel for the 1st respondent, at any stretch of
imagination, such a person cannot be considered as a
'Savarna Hindu'.
7. All other matters considered by the courts below
are merely academic and do not relate to the crux of the
matter. From the rival arguments forwarded by both sides,
first of all, it has to be considered as to who is a 'Hindu'?
The next question to be considered is the status of a 'Nair' in
the 'Varnas' and whether the sect of 'Veluthedathu Nair' will
come within the category of 'Nairs'. The further question to
be considered is whether 'Nairs' can be considered as a
'Savarna Hindu' and in such case, whether 'Veluthedathu
Nair' also can be considered as a 'Savarna Hindu'.
8. The learned counsel for the 1st respondent has
contended that the petitioner is guilty of incorporating the
term 'Nair' also along with the term 'Veluthedathu' in
showing his caste name in the records. The argument is
that the petitioner ought to have shown his caste name as
'Veluthedathu' or 'Veluthedan' and should not have used the
term 'Nair' by prefixing the term 'Veluthedathu'.
9. Seeds of Modern Public Law in Ancient Indian
Jurisprudence by Rama Jois, 2nd Edition, Page 171 says:-
"Bharathiya values regarding human rights
perhaps have the oldest pedigree. Rigveda
which is regarded as the oldest document,
declares that all human beings are equal
and they are brothers".
Mandala-5, Sukta-6, Mantra-5 incorporated in Rigveda, the
most ancient of the Vedas, says:
"No one is superior (Ajyestasa) or inferior
(akanishtasa). All are brothers (ete
bharataraha). All should strive for the
interests of all and should progress
collectively".
10. In ancient India, equality among human beings
was the landmark. Among the members of a particular
'Varna', equality was the landmark and no one was
considered as superior or inferior. But in the passage of
time, somebody had considered themselves as superiors
over others, merely on account of self imposed superiority.
They wanted to treat others as inferiors to them.
11. In P. Ramanatha Aiyar's The Major Law Lexicon:
4th Edition 2010 Volume 3 Page 3076; it was held that:
"The term Hindu is defined for the application of Hindu
Law as a person includes not only; those who are Hindu by
religion; but also those who are commonly known as such."
12. MULLA's Principles of Hindu Law (Fourteenth
Edition) paragraph 671 was relied on by the Supreme
Court in C.W.T. v. R.Sridharan [(1976) 4 SCC 489]; wherein
it was held in paragraph 17 that:
"The word 'Hindu' does not denote any
particular religion or community. During the last
hundred years and more it has been a nomenclature
used to refer comprehensively to various categories of
people for purposes of personal law. It has been
applied to dissenters and non-conformists and even to
those who have entirely repudiated Brahminism. It
has been applied to various sects and beliefs which at
various periods and in circumstances developed out
of, or spit off from, the Hindu system but whose
members have nevertheless continued to live under
the Hindu Law and the Courts have generally put a
liberal construction upon enactments relating to the
personal law applicable to Hindus."
13. Dr. Whitely Stocks has pointed out that:
"The collocation of the words Hindu, Mahomedian, or
Budhish makes it reasonably plain that the term Budhish
makes it reasonably plain that the term Hindu is used as
theological terms and denotes only persons, who profess
any faith of the Brahminical religion or the religion of
Puranas."
14. In Shastri Yagnapurushdasji v. Muldas
Bhundardas Vaishya [AIR 1996 SC 1119] it was held that:
"The historical and etymological genesis of the word
"Hindu" has given rise to a controversy among indologists,
but the view generally accepted by scholars appears to be
that the word "Hindu" is derived from the river Sindhu
otherwise known as Indus which flows from the Punjab.
"That part of the great Aryan race", says Monier Willaims,
"Which immigrated from Central Asia, through the
mountain passes into India, settled first in the district near
the river Sindhu (now called the Indus). The Persians
pronounced this word Hindu and named their Aryan
brethren Hindus. The Greeks, who probably gained their
first ideas of India from the Persians, dropped the hard
aspirate and called the Hindus "INDOI". The
Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics, Vol.VI has described
Hinduism as the title applied to that form of religion which
prevails among the vast majority of the present population
of the Indian Empire."
15. In Commissioner, H.R.C.E. Mysore v.
Ratnavarma Heggde [(1977) 1 SC 525] in paragraph 43; it
was held that:
"The term 'Hindu' has a fairly wide connotations. In
origin it indicated people living in the Indus region. It is
only by subsequent usage and extension of meaning that
the word acquired a religious sense, therefore in this
sense, a more limited significance. The term 'Hindu'
though not defined in the Act, may be presumed to stand
for people of India with certain religious beliefs held or
forms of religious worship practised by people of India
originally."
16. In Bail Patil v. Union of India [AIR 2005 SC
3172]; it was held that:
"The word 'Hindu' conveys the image of diverse
groups of communities living in India. A 'Hindu' can be
identified only on the basis of his caste as an upper caste,
Brahmin, Kshatriya or Vaish or of lower caste described in
ancient India as shudras. The aboriginals who have no
caste were considered as distinct from four castes or
varnas of Hindu society and they have been treated in the
constitution as scheduled Tribes and the Shudras are
included in the Constitution as Scheduled Castes with
special privileges and treatment for their upliftment."
17. In M.P.Gopalkrishnan Nair v. State of Kerala,
[AIR 2005 SC 3053]; it was held that:
"A 'Hindu' may or may not be a person professing
Hindu religion or a believer in temple worship. A Hindu has
a right to choose his own method of worship. The term
'Hindu' is a comprehensive expression giving the widest
freedom to people of all hues, opinions, philosophies and
beliefs to come within its fold."
From the definitions given to the term Hindu, it can be
concluded that 'Hindu' is a theological term and it denotes
only persons who profess any faith of Brahminical religion or
religion of Puranas.
18. When dealing with 'Varnas', it has to be
considered that there are only four 'Varnas' namely,
'Brahmanas', 'Kshathriyas', 'Vaisyas' and 'Shudras',
collectively called "Chathurvarnyam". It seems that the
'Nair' communities as a whole will come within the category
of the fourth 'Varna'. Therefore, prima facie, it can be seen
that a person, who holds his caste name as 'Nair' along with
other sects, are also persons coming within the fourth
category of 'Varna' among 'Hindu'. In clause 3 of Exhibit P4,
the main qualification for a person to become a member of
the 'Paramekkavu Devaswom' is that he should hail from
any of the 'Karas' known as 'Paramekkavu', 'Chembukkavu',
'Kizhakkumpattukara', 'Veliyannoor' and 'Koorkancherry'.
Then, the next qualification is that he should be a
'Malayalee'. Therefore, even if a person is a Tamil Brahmin,
as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the 1st
respondent, he should not be entitled to become a member
of the 'Paramekkavu Devaswom', as he is not hailing from
the State of Kerala. Admittedly, the petitioner is a
'Malayalee'. The next qualification is that such a 'Malayalee'
should be a 'Savarna Hindu'. Who is a 'Savarna Hindu'?
19. The learned counsel for the 1st respondent has
seriously canvased an argument that Exhibit P4 By-laws is
of the year 1103 ME; in short, which came into force in the
pre-constitution period and therefore, the freedoms
guaranteed in the constitution cannot be applied to the
qualifications prescribed in Exhibit P4. In the same breath,
he argues that when a person is receiving benefits of
reservation, such a person cannot be treated as a 'Savarna
Hindu'; because he is of a lower strata, which is considered
to be a member of a lower category in the religion and
therefore, he is not a 'Savarna Hindu'. With respect, it can
be said that the said two arguments will not go together.
20. The learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed
out that in all the Dictionaries and text books, the word
'Savarna' is defined as a person coming within any of the
four 'Varnas'. In 'Shabdatharavali', 9th Edition, page
No.1704, the term 'Savarna' has been explained as,
'A person coming within the same caste or a
person coming within an equal caste or a
person coming within any of the Varnas in
the Chathurvarnyam'.
The New Malayalam Dictionary by C.Madhavan Pillai,
Volume 1, wherein an 'Avarna' is defined, in page No.253,
as:
'A person belonging to the deprived caste or
a person does not belong to the
Chathurvarnyam'.
Therefore, the term 'Avarna' is commonly meant as relating
to a person who is not coming within any of the four
'Varnas'. The aforesaid New Malayalam Dictionary gives
the meaning of the term 'Savarnan' in page No.991, as:
'a person coming within the Chathurvarnya,
that means any of the four Varnas'.
21. The learned counsel for the petitioner has invited
the attention of this Court to 'Sarvavignjanakosam', Volume
8, which says that depending upon the works being done or
the cultivations being carried out by them, persons were
categorized differently even when they belong to the same
caste. It says that most of the 'Nairs' were persons not doing
any manual work. The persons, who were working at the
temple and residing within the temple, were also to be
treated as 'Nairs'. It further denotes that 'Nairs' are coming
within the 'Varna' of 'Shudra'. It further says that 'Nairs' were
persons of upper category when compared to persons, who
were being treated as untouchables. At the same time, it
does not say that those untouchables were not being
treated as persons coming within the 'Shudra Varna'.
22. Over and above all these, the learned counsel for
the petitioner has invited the attention of this Court to the
decision in Nani Amma v. Kochugovindan Nair [1962 KLT
979]. The question considered by His Lordship Justice
M.Madhavan Nair was with regard to the law of succession
applicable to 'Veluthedans' in Cochin Area. In the decision
noted (Supra), it was held that there are four lower caste
'Nairs', in which 'Veluthedan' (washer men) is the third one.
Even though, it is of a lower caste, it seems that
'Veluthedath Nair' is also considered as one of the
categories of 'Nairs'. It was held therein that even though
such four lower caste 'Nairs' are also there, such four sub
divisions is not one contemplated in the legislation. It was
held therein that:
"If Veluthedans form a sub-caste of the Nayar
community- whether such sub-caste be of the higher
order or lower order is immaterial - they are Nayars
and the Cochin Nayar, Act, which applies to all
Nayars in Cochin, must necessarily apply to them as
well. There is absolutely no warrant to hold that the
Act applies only to the higher sub-castes of Nayars
and not to the lower sub-castes among them. The
Act makes no such distinction; and it is not for the
Court to import any against the expression of the
Act."
From the said discussions, it was concluded that even
though 'Veluthedath Nair' was considered to be a lower
category among 'Nairs', it was held that a 'Veluthedath Nair'
is also a 'Nair' for all practical purposes and in the eye of
law.
23. Going by the decision in Nani Amma's case
(Supra), the fact that in ancient days of desecration and
untouchability, 'Veluthedans' were not allowed to enter the
temples where 'Nairs' were allowed free entry, is of little
relevance. It seems that such terms of desecration and
untouchability etc. are not known to the modern
jurisprudence. Even though, 'Thanthris' or persons
associated with 'Thanthrik' rites or education can afford to
have terms like 'untouchability' or 'desecration' etc. in the
sense noted in 'Kuzhikkattupacha', the judicial exercise can
only ill-afford it. Such terms in that sense are not known to
the modern jurisprudence.
24. Nani Amma's case (Supra) is based on the
decision in Velayudhan Krishnan v. Velayudhan
Govindan (21 TLJ. 851); wherein it was held that
'Veluthedans' are to be known as 'Nairs' and are governed
by the Nair Act. In Nani Amma's case (Supra) it was further
held that the Memorandum of 'Cochin Nair Mahasamajam'
reckons 'Veluthedans' as a sub-sect of the 'Nairs' and that
the opinions of the great leaders of the 'Nair' community
necessarily tantamount to recognition of the sect of
'Veluthedans' being a sub-sect of 'Nair' community.
25. The learned counsel for the petitioner is relying on
Exhibit P7 N.S.S. Charithram, 1st Volume, wherein it was
noted that there are 18 sub-sects in the 'Nair' community.
The first three are 'Kiriyam', 'Illam' and 'Swaroopam'. In the
remaining, persons working at the temples, like the 'Marar'
sub-sect, persons handling 'chembu vela', persons applying
tiles to the temple, persons making earthen pots, persons
known as 'Chakkala Nayar' etc. are also such sub-sects of
the Nair community. Persons doing the business of milk
wending were known as 'Idacherry Nair,' other persons
doing business in the 'Nair' community were known as
'Vyapari Nair'. Likewise, persons doing washing works are
known as 'Veluthedath Nair'. Persons, who are working as
barbers were known as 'Vilakkithala Nair.' Similarly, other
sub-sets are also identified by the N.S.S. as persons coming
within the 'Nair' Community.
26. Exhibit P8 is the certificate issued by the 'N.S.S.
Karayogam', which shows that the petitioner is a member of
the N.S.S. Karayogam No.1990.
27. The learned counsel for the 1st respondent has
produced Exhibit R1(u), which is the By-laws of the 'N.S.S.
Karayogam', which shows that other 'Hindus', who are well
wishers of the 'Karayogam' can also be enrolled as
members of the 'Karayogam'. Based on that clause, the
learned counsel for the 1st respondent has put forwarded an
argument that even if a person is not a 'Nair', if he belongs
to the Hindu religion, he could also be enrolled as a member
of the 'Karayogam', provided he is a well wisher of the
'Karayogam' and therefore, the mere membership of the
petitioner in the 'N.S.S. Karayogam' alone cannot be
reckoned for the purpose of categorizing him as a 'Nair'.
The By-laws says that for enrolling any such member, a
special sanction from the Registrar is required.
28. The learned counsel for the 1st respondent has
placed heavy reliance on "Kuzhikkattu Pacha", to show that
when persons like 'Veluthedath Nair', who makes an entry
near to the sanctum sanctorum of the temple, makes the
temple impure, such a person cannot be permitted to be in
the administrative body of 'Paramekkavu Devaswom'. If as
a matter of fact, the questions of sublimation or
untouchability have any relevancy for deciding the
qualification to be a member of the 'Paramekkavu
Devaswom', definitely that should have found a place in the
By-laws of the 'Paramekkavu Devaswom'.
29. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for
the petitioner, many eminent scholars and several leaders of
the 'Nair' community were the leaders of the 'Paramekkavu
Devaswom'. It was during the tenure of such eminent
persons, who were ruling the 'Paramekkavu Devaswom' that
the present petitioner was also enrolled as a member of the
'Paramekkavu Devaswom' and was elected in the
administrative body of the 'Paramekkavu Devaswom' in the
year 1987. If as a matter of fact, such a person was
considered to be a person, whose presence could impure or
desecrate the temple, definitely such a qualification should
also have been incorporated in the By-laws of the
'Devaswom'. At the same time, the By-laws of the
'Devaswom' deals with the qualification of a person to
become a member of the 'Devaswom' as a 'Malayalee
Savarna Hindu'. The same is carefully worded, by making
'Avarnas' alone as persons, who are not qualified to be a
member of the 'Devaswom'. If a person is a 'Savarna
Hindu', he is qualified to be a member.
30. From the forgoing discussions, it has come out
that the petitioner belongs to the sub-sect of 'Veluthedath
Nair' is, no doubt, a 'Nair' for all practical purposes and
therefore, he cannot be treated as an 'Avarna Hindu'. When
he belongs to a sub-sect of the 'Nair' community, he
squarely falls within the category of the fourth 'Varna' namely
'Shudra' and therefore, he is a 'Savarna Hindu'. The terms
like untouchability etc. are alien to Exhibit P4 By-laws of the
'Paramekkavu Devaswom'. It does not deal with the
question of impurity, untouchability etc., whereas, it deals
with the question of 'Avarna' or 'Savarna Hindus'. When the
petitioner is a person belongs to a 'Savarna Hindu', he is
entitled to be a member of the 'Paramekkavu Devaswom'.
31. It seems that both the courts below were carried
away by holding a person as not a 'Savarna', in case, he is
entitled to some sort of reservation in education or
appointments based on the constitutional protections
granted to some weaker sects. Merely because of such a
constitutional protection, it cannot be said that those
persons are 'untouchables' or 'Avarnas'. By enjoying such a
constitutional protection available to the weaker strata, one
cannot become an 'Avarna'. Even when they are
'Savarnas', weaker sections are entitled to such
constitutional protections.
32. Finally, the learned counsel for the 1st respondent
has argued that earlier there was a suit before the Munsiff
court, Thrissur as O.S.No.3018 of 2009 by challenging the
qualification prescribed for persons to become the member
of the 'Paramekkavu Devaswom' in the By-laws. It was
argued that in that suit, the 'Paramekkavu Devaswom' had
filed a written statement by contending that persons, who
are enjoying reservation in the question of education or
employment, are not entitled to become members of the
'Paramekkavu Devaswom' as they are not 'Savarna Hindu'.
'Paramekkavu Devaswom' cannot take such a stand.
'Paramekkavu Devaswom' has to go by its own By-laws.
They will have to decide the question independently as to
whether a person is a 'Savarna Hindu' or an 'Avarna'. Such
a decision should be based on accepted legal principles and
not in common parlance by considering that a person, who
is enjoying a reservation considers himself to be an 'Avarna'.
Such an interpretation of the term is not permissible in the
eye of law. Whatever be such contentions taken by the
'Paramekkavu Devaswom', the petitioner is not bound by
any such concession even if made by the 'Paramekkavu
Devaswom'.
33. It seems that the appellate court has simply
endorsed the findings entered by the trial court as gospel
truths. In fact, the order passed by the learned Munsiff was
repeated and recited as such by the appellate court without
applying mind.
34. From the discussions made above, it has come
out that the decisions taken by the trial court, which has
been approved by the appellate court in the C.M.A., have
resulted in substantial miscarriage of justice. The said
decisions rendered by both the courts below are against
known legal principles. Therefore, both the said orders
passed by the courts below are liable to be set aside.
I.A.No.10026 of 2013 is liable to be dismissed. Of course, it
is open to the 1st respondent to challenge the eligibility of the
petitioner to become a member or office bearer of the
'Paramekkavu Devaswom' on any grounds other than the
ground taken up here. The question whether the petitioner is
a 'Savarna Hindu' or not does not arise for consideration in
any further debate in the matter.
With the aforesaid observations, this Original Petition is
allowed. The orders passed by the courts below on
I.A.No.10026 of 2013 are set aside. I.A.No.10026 of 2013
stands dismissed.
B.KEMAL PASHA
JUDGE
No comments:
Post a Comment