SOMAN Vs. APPUTTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Defendants are the revision petitioners. The revision petition is directed against an order of the Trial Court allowing amendment of the decree on the application of respondents 1 and 2 (plaintiffs), in order to make it in conformity with the judgment:

(2.) The suit property is a temple and its premises. Plaintiffs claimed that it is a private temple belonging to their family and first plaintiff is the uralan in possession and management. Second plaintiff claimed to be in possession of the premises under a lease arrangement with the first plaintiff. Though it is a private temple plaintiffs admitted the right of defendants and other Hindus of the locality to worship in the temple, but disputed their right to interfere with the possession and management. The suit was for permanent injunction to restrain the defendants and the Hindus of the locality, whom they represent, from trespassing and interfering with the management. Defendants were sued in a representative capacity and publication under O.1, R.8 was made. No interested person got himself impleaded pursuant to the publication.

(3.) Revision petitioners contended that it is a public temple managed by a public committee in which the predecessor of the first plaintiff was only a member. Defendants claimed to be the office-bearers in management and possession.