(1.) Appellants in A.S. 97 of 1993 are the plaintiffs in O.S. 65 of 1985 of the Sub Court, Cherthala. Appellants in A.S.155 of 1994 are defendants 3 and 4 in O.S. 15 of 1986 of the same Court. These two suits along with O.S.16 of 1986 were tried together. The Sub Judge dismissed O.S.65 of 1985 and O.S.16 of 1986. O.S.15 of 1986 was decreed and Ext. A-35 document executed by the defendants was declared void and not binding on members of Vattakeril family. Defendants in O.S. 15 of 1986 who are not members of Vattakeril family are inducted by a permanent injunction from interfering with the affairs of the temple.
(2.) Plaintiffs in O.S. 65 of 1985 filed the suit for framing a scheme for the administration of the temple on the allegation that it is a public endowment. It is also alleged that defendants are not properly carrying on the administration of the temple, that they are utilising its income for their personal needs and that if they are allowed to continue to do so it would be detrimental to the larger interests of the worshipers of the temple, the beneficiaries of the trust. Plaintiffs assert that Sree Kandakarna Temple is a public trust and so to protect its interests and for proper administration of the same a scheme has to be framed. Defendants contended that as per Ext. Al partition deed of their family in 1107 ME 16 cents of land temple are kept in common for the exclusive benefit of the members and so it cannot be claimed by anyone under the guise of public trust.
(3.) The question that arises for consideration is whether the plaintiffs are entitled to institute the suit under S.92 of the C.P.C. Plaintiffs have admitted that the property belonged to Vattakeril family. Specific mention of Ext. A-1 partition deed is made in para.2 of the plaint. It is the admitted case on the side of the plaintiffs that the property having an extent of 16 cents and temple are kept in common for the benefit of all the members of the family. But their contention is that it has become a public trust during course of time.