K. SUSEELAN Vs. THAMARAKSHY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A suit for declaration of co-ownership right, possession thereof over plaint A and B schedule and a permanent prohibitory injunction not to meddle with the right of plaintiff, was decreed by both the trial court and the first appellate court. Earlier the suit was dismissed, but the first appellate court set aside the decree and remanded back to the trial court. It is thereafter both the courts below decreed the suit, against which defendants 1, 3, 8, 9 , 10, 13, 14, 15, 21 and 23 came up with this appeal.

(2.) The plaint A schedule is having 24.5 cents in Sy.No.5/8 A of Thiruppuram village, Neyyattinkara and the B schedule is the structures situated therein, the temple and its connected structures. The plaint A schedule property was a part of large extent of 1 acre 83 cents in Sy.No.5/8 A. Earlier this property was subjected to a settlement by the settlement officer under the Travancore Oodukur settlement proclamation 1122 (ME), by which it was divided into 14 plots and allotted to 10 persons. The plot No.11 is the plaint A schedule. It was kept in common to the 10 persons under the settlement order - Ext.A1, over which the plaintiffs claim co-ownership right and possession. The suit was instituted in a representative capacity for themselves and also for and on behalf of all the co-owners.

(3.) The defendants contested the suit that the temple is a public temple belonged to a section of people, the Ezhava community and from time immemorial they were managing and administering the affairs of the temple through an elected body by name Kshetra Yoga Committee headed by its President. Inter alia it was contended that they have acquired so many immoveable properties in the name of deity. On 14.10.1982, they have executed and registered a trust udampady based on the decision taken by the general body of section of people belonged to Ezhava community dated 8.8.1982. The trial court and the first appellate court rejected the contention of the defendants and granted a declaration in favour of the plaintiffs besides a prohibitory injunction not to meddle with the right, title and interest of the plaintiffs over the property.