The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for schools to be established and managed in accordance with the provisions of the Kerala Education Act, including the necessity of notifying the Government for running a school as a recognized school.

D. Sreedevi, J.

S.A. No. 19 is directed against the decree and judgment in A.S. No. 182 of 1986 on the file of the District Court, Thalassery, which was filed against the decree and judgment in O.S. No. 343 of 1981, on the file of the Munsiff's Court, Kannur.

2. The suit O.S. No. 343 of 1981 on the file of the Munsiff's Court, Kannur was in respect of a school building. The plaintiffs case is that her husband late T.V. Narayanan was the Manager and Correspondent of Kannapuram East U.P. School, which was owned, possessed and run by him. As desired by the Education Department, requiring her husband, T.V. Narayanan to furnish the name and address of the person who should succeed him as Manager in the event of his death, the plaintiffs name was nominated, as per communication dated 20.4.68, which was accepted by the Department. Narayanan died on 3.10.1977. Thereafter, the plaintiff became the Manager of the School. One Pallan Kannan Nair filed O.S. No. 291 of 1980 for injunction against the plaintiff and A.E.O. restraining the Assistant Educational Officer from confirming the plaintiff as the Manager of the School. The plaintiff was impleaded therein as the second defendant. The first defendant, along with some others filed O.S. No. 228 of 1980 for a declaration that the nomination of the plaintiff is void. On the allegation that the defendants are attempting to interfere with the running of the School Administration, the plaintiff has filed the suit for a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction from taking any steps to induct strangers into the staff of the school. The defendants filed written statement contending that the School is situate in the property purchased in the name of the first defendant, Gopalan Nambiar, and that the recognition of the school was granted in the name of the President of the Managing Committee. According to them, the school building was constructed by the first defendant along with teachers, Raghavan Nambiar, Govindan Nair, Kavulla Purayil Kelu and late Thekke Veettil Narayanan. Subsequently, Pallan Kannan Nair was also included as one of the co-owners of the property and a Nischayarekha was entered into among them. Under the terms of the Nischayarekha the plaintiffs and Narayanan became joint owners of the School and the property in which the school is situate. Thekke Veettil Narayanan was elected as the Manager and Correspondent of the school, who continued to be the Manager till his death on 3.10.1979. In 1957, one Mullol Veettil Karunakaran Nambiar was also given a share in the school property and the school. Thus, 7 persons have become the co-owners of the property and the school. The management of the school vested with the co.-owners. After the death of the Manager Narayanan the first defendant and others came to know that Narayanan had nominated his wife the plaintiff as the Manager of the School after his death. The said nomination is void. Hence they filed O.S. No. 228 of 1980 for a declaration that the nomination of the plaintiff as Manager made by Narayanan is void.

3. The trial Court tried the above two cases jointly and dismissed O.S. No. 343 of 1981 and decreed O.S. No. 228 of 1980. Aggrieved by the said decree and judgment, the plaintiff in O.S. No. 343 of 1981 filed A.S. No. 182 of 1986 and also A.S.No.183 of 1986 against the decree and judgment in O.S. No. 228 of 1980, before the District Court, Thalassery. The learned District Judge dismissed both the appeals. Aggrieved by the said decree and judgment, the appellant/ plaintiff in O.S. No. 343 of 1981 filed S.A. No. 19 of 1993 against the decree and judgment in A.S. No. 184 of 1986 and against the decree and judgment in A.S. No. 183 of 1986 S. A. No. 20 of 1993 was filed.

4. The main question to be decided in this appeal is whether Kannapuram East U.P. School was established by individual educational agency or corporate educational agency. The respondents claim that the school was established by Corporate educational agenc