(1.) The appellants in these Second Appeals have come up by challenging the judgment and decree passed by the Additional District Court-II, Thiruvananthapuram in A.S. No.172 of 2010, A.S. No.100 of 2011 and A.S. No.183 of 2010.
(2.) Originally these appellants were defendants in O.S. No.181 of 2001 of the Munsiff's Court, Neyyattinkara. The said suit was filed by the respondents herein as plaintiffs, seeking a decree of perpetual injunction, restraining the defendants from obstructing the 3rd plaintiff from conducting poojas and necessary rituals at the temple situated in the plaint schedule property as well as its sub temples in the scheduled property, and also restraining the defendants from committing forcible trespass into the scheduled property and from installing any deity or to conduct poojas or cause to conduct poojas and from committing waste thereon.
(3.) The defendants filed a detailed written statement by setting up a counter claim. The property scheduled in the counter claim is precisely one cent of property situated 50 links towards east from the south western corner and 20 links towards north from the south western corner of the plaint scheduled property, and the one coconut tree standing in the said one cent of property. Through the counter claim, they have sought for a relief for declaring the right, title and possession of the defendants in the said one cent of property scheduled in the counter claim. The Munsiff's Court, Neyyattinkara, decreed O.S. No.172 of 2010 and dismissed the counter claim. At the same time, the learned Munsiff was magnanimous enough in granting a relief to the defendants by declaring that the defendants will have the right to perform poojas in the Manthramoorthi Mandapam without causing any obstruction to the rites, poojas and festivals in the temple in the plaint scheduled property.