PHALGUNAN N.K. Vs. WILSON JOSEPH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal arises from the proceedings in execution of the decree in O.S.No.287 of 1994 on the file of the Munsiff Court, Kochi. The predecessor of the first respondent was the plaintiff in the suit. The suit was one for recovery possession and injunction. The plaint A schedule property measuring 29 cents belonged to the plaintiff. The mother -in -law of the first defendant namely, Iyya was a kudikidappukari in the said property. The plaint B schedule property which is a portion of the plaint A schedule property measuring 10 cents was accordingly given by the plaintiff to Iyya towards kudikidappu. The plaint C schedule property, hereinafter referred to as 'the suit property', measuring 19 cents was the property remaining with the plaintiff after settling the kudikidappu claim of Iyya. According to the plaintiff, while Iyya was residing in the plaint A schedule property, her husband used to worship a few stones placed by him in the suit property. It was the case of the plaintiff that after the death of the husband of Iyya, the members of Pulaya community to which Iyya belonged, continued the worship after consecrating a deity for the said purpose. It was also the case of the plaintiff that of late, the members of the Pulaya community formed an association called, "Sree Bhayyakkara Bhagavathy Dharmodharani Pulaya Samajam" and took control of the suit property. Defendants 2 and 3 in the suit were the office bearers of the said association. The suit was filed, in the circumstances, for recovery of possession of the suit property from the defendants after removing the structures erected by them for worship in the property. Since the suit property was under the control of the association referred to above, defendants 2 and 3 were sued in their representative capacity for and on behalf of all the persons interested in the said association, as provided for under Order I Rule 8 of of the Code of Civil Procedure.

(2.) The first defendant remained ex -parte. Defendants 2 and 3 contested the suit contending, among others, that a temple has been built in the suit property about 50 years ago and since the establishment of the temple was with the knowledge and consent of the plaintiff, the plaintiff is not entitled to the reliefs claimed in the suit.

(3.) The trial court rejected the contentions raised by the defendants and decreed the suit. The operative portion of the judgment of the trial court reads thus: