R. Bhaskaran, J.

These. three second appeals 'arise out of the same suit and first appeal. There were 41 plaintiffs in O:S. No. 487 of 1978 on the file of the Munsiff, Thiruvalla. That suit was for a declaration that they are members belonging to Hiridu Mala Araya Community. It is stated that t11ey are entitled for the benefits available to the members of the Scheduled Tribe and the falVily members of the plaintiffs' were given such benefits by the State. Since the Tahsildar refused caste certificate to the children of the plaintiffs' stating that plaintiffs are not Hindu Mala Araya, the suit is filed.

2. The trial court decreed he suit. The decision of the trial court was based on Ext. A I patta in respect of 17 cents of property assigned on registry in favour of the Mala Araya Karayogam, Ext. _2 true copy of the schedule showing the distribution of population numerically important Scheduled Tribes of Kerala and certain certificates issued by the Tahsildar, Thinivalla, to some of the relatives of the petitioners. The contention of the defendants is that the plaintiffs belong to Araya Community which is not included in the list of Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes. Araya Community is OBC (Other Backward Community). Certain documents were relied on by the defendants to show that the plaintiffs' 'do not belong to Mala Araya Community. It is unnecessary to go into the details of these contentions in these second appeals.

3. The appellate court allowed the appeal filed by the defendants and found. that the suit is not maintainable. The appellate court relied on the decision of the Supreme Court holding that there is an implied bat for the maintainability of such suits.

4. The counsel appearing for the appellants vehemently argued that under S.90f the Code of Civil Procedure all suits of civil nature are maintainable unless their. cognizance is impliedly barred and there is nothing to show that the cognizance of the Civil Court is impliedly barred in this case.

5. In this case, I find that 41 persons have joined together and filed a common suit for a declaration that they belong to Mala Araya Community by stating that the Karayogam to which they were members have been assigned 17 cents by the Government recognising it as a Mala Araya Karayogam. They also produced certain certificates and entries in the SSLC book relating to some of their relatives showing that they have been given the benefits available to members of Scheduled Tribe. According to me, it is not possible to decree such a suit on such vague allegations apart from the fact that the Supreme Court has held that such suits are impliedly barred under S.9 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In State of Tamil Nadu v. A Gurusamy (1997 (3) SCC 542), the plaintiff was described as a member of "Thotti" community in the school records. Thotti community is a scheduled caste under the Presedential Notification. Subsequently, the plaintiff obtained certificate from the Revenue Divisional Officer indicating him to be a Kattunaikkan which community is recognised as a Scheduled Tribe in the State of Tamil Nadu under the Presidential Notification. When he applied for a permanent certificate, enquiry was conducted and it was found that the plaintiff was not a member of Scheduled Tribe but a member of Scheduled Caste and the earlier certificate was cancelled. That necessitated the suit which was deceed by the trial court and confirmed by the appellate court and the decrees were further confirmed by the High Court in second appeal. The Supreme Court however allowed the appeal filed by the State and dismissed the suit finding that by necessary implication the jurisdiction of the civil court to take cognizance and give a declaration stand prohibited. The authorities competent to issue the certificate were to conduct necessary enquiries and thereafter a decision is taken. In this case, the plaintiffs have no case that their claim to be members of Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes have been