IMPORTANT POINTS
A decree would be binding on the parties to the suit and not on third party.
When permission for filing SLP is once granted, question of maintainability cannot subsequently be raised.

JUDGMENT

Dr. Mukundakam Sharma, J.—

1. Leave granted.

2. The present appeal is filed by the appellant herein challenging the legality of the Judgment dated 18.05.2004 passed by the Division Bench of the Kerala High Court dismissing not only the CMP No. 1118 of 2001 in T.D.B. No. 38 of 1996 but also the appeal registered as A.S. No. 298 of 2002 arising out of O.S. No. 37 of 1998.

3. In T.D.B. No. 38 of 1996, the Travancore Devaswom Board (hereinafter “the Board”) alleged that the property, which was the plaint schedule property in O.S. No. 37 of 1998, belong to Travancore Devaswom Board and that said land had been illegally encroached upon and was in occupation of the trespassers. The aforesaid suit was filed for removing the trespassers.

4. Earlier, the Travancore Devaswom Board had filed a suit for evicting the trespassers (the respondents), which was registered as O.S. No. 37 of 1998. The said suit was contested by the respondents. However, the aforesaid suit was finally dismissed.

5. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order an appeal was filed by the Board before the Kerala High Court contending, inter alia, that the plaint scheduled property belongs to it and that the respondent no. 1 was in illegal occupation of the same and prayed for an eviction order against respondent no. 1. As CMP No. 1118 of 2001 in T.D.B. No. 38 of 1996 was pending for consideration before the Munsiff Court, the High Court on coming to know that another proceeding, namely, A.S. No. 298 of 2002 is pending for consideration for the same property in the appellate court, High Court withdrew the said proceedings from the appellate court and proceeded to decide both the matter together. The High Court held that the trial court was justified in dismissing the suit of the Board, particularly, in view of Exhibit B5. After recording that the property did not belong to the Board and that it actually belong to Respondent No. 1, it was held that the Respondent No. 1 was wrongly dispossessed on the basis of the subsequent survey and therefore a direction was issued to hand over the possession of the property to the Respondent No. 1.

6. Being aggrieved by the said Judgment and Order a Special Leave Petition No. 15250 of 2005 (CC No. 6642 of 2005) was filed before this Court by the Board, which was, however, dismissed on the ground of inordinate delay. The present appeal is filed by the Temple Advisory Committee against the aforesaid Judgment of the High Court contending, inter alia, that the Board is not interested in protecting its property and therefore the aforesaid SLP was filed casually after expiry of the limitation period thereby allowing a large part of immovable property which belong to the temple to go to the third party which would adversely affect the very functioning of the temple. This Court issued notice in the SLP as also on the application seeking for condonation of delay and also on the application for interim relief. The matter was consequently listed before us for final hearing upon which we heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

7. However, before we advert to the submissions made by the counsel appearing for the respective parties, we may record a few facts leading to the filing of the present appeal so as to enable us to effectively consider the contentions of the parties. Payappar Sree Dharma Sastha Temple was settled with a large track of land, which was necessary for the better management of the temple. A Board was constituted to look after the management of the property of the Temple - the appellant herein. The appellant is a Body duly constituted by the Board as per the bylaws issued by the Board. Large extent of valuable property adjoining the temple was trespassed by some people and from that, an extent of 1.85 acres was allegedly encroached upon by the predecessor of Respondent No. 1. When at the behest of the Temple, orders were issued to evict the predecessor of Respondent No. 1, a suit was filed by him before the Muns