The main legal point established in the judgment is the invalidity of the leases under Section 29 of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951, and the inapplicability of protection under Section 6C of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1964.

In November, 1969 the manager of Sree Karikad Devaswom granted two leases, one in favour of Krishnan Natnboodiri, and another in favour of Balakrishnan Nair. The first, registered as document No. 2454, was in respect of 16 acres and 4 cents of land belonging to the Devaswom, and the second, registered as document No. 2455, was in respect of one acre. The period specified was one year and the rent, Rs. 5/-per acre. After the death of . Krishnan Namboodiri his heirs assigned the leasehold right to the Wandoor Jupiter Chits (P) Ltd. Balakrishnan Nair also transferred his rights to the company. This company was ordered to be wound up in 1973. Pending the framing of a scheme under the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951 for the proper administration of the Devaswom, the Deputy Commissioner functioning under the Act appointed a 'fit person' to be in charge of the Devaswom, in July, 1976. This person considered the leases to be unauthorised, improvident and prejudicial to the Devaswom. and after obtaining sanction from the Department for instituting legal proceedings, approached this Court with Application Nos. 640 and 656 of 1977 for leave under Sec. 446 of the Companies Act to file suits for cancelling the two documents and for recovery of possession. Leave was granted on 27-1-78 and C.S. Nos I and 2 were then filed by him in June, 1978.

2. In August, 1977 one Fr. Cuthbert filed Application No. 673/77 for an order that the lands in question be sold to him at the rate of Rs. 800/-per acre. On 22-9-77 the Official Liquidator filed a report in the above matter, pointing out that the fit person of the Devaswom had already moved this Court for leave to institute legal proceedings for cancelling the leases. Thereafter the application was dismissed on 14-7-78 as not pressed On 23-11-78 another application (No. 664/78) was filed on behalf of the Islamic Association;, Wandoor for purchase of the lands at the rate of Rs I000/-per acre. As already noticed, C S. Nos. 1 and 2 of 1978 had been tiled by that time; and on 7-12-78, this Court passed an order allowing the Liquidator to sell the lands to the Association if it was willing to pay at the rate of Rs.1300/- per acre and to "take the property without any recourse". The Association purchased the properties on the above terms on 12 -1-79.

3. Soon after the above, the Association got itself impleaded in both the suits and filed written statements. Issues were framed on 2-7-79 In January, 198U the Association applied for receiving two documents in evidence viz. an order of the Land Tribunal. Malappuram allowing purchase of the lands covered by document No. 2454, and the purchase certificate. The platintiff sought for and obtained leave to amend the plaint, seeking a declaration that the purchase certificate was issued in proceedings which were null and void. The Association was also allowed to file an additional written statement claiming the benefit of S.6C of the Land Reforms Act, introduced by Amending Act 27/ 79. Additional issues were also framed, with the result that the issues now arising for consideration in C. S. No. 1/78 are the following:

1. Whether the plaintiff has no legal right to sue on behalf of the Devaswom?

2. Whether the lease granted by the Devaswom was void for want of sanction under S.29 of the H. R.& C. E. Act?

3. Was the lease improvident and prejudicial to the interests of the Devaswom?

4. Was it invalid under S.74 of Act I of 1964?

5. Whether the plaintiff is estopped from questioning the lease?

6. Whether the plaintiff can claim mesne profits and if seat what rate?

7. Is the suit barred by limitation?

8. Whether the suit has to be returned to the proper court in view of the assignment dated 12- 1-79? 9 Whether the assignment dated 12-1-79 is vitiated by Us pendens

10. Reliefs and costs?

addl.11. Whether the lease in question is protected by S.6C of the Kerala Land Reforms Act 1 of [964 and whether the 7th defendant can claim such protection?

1