1. These appeals are from the decisions of a learned single judge of this court in three second appeals.

2. O. S.531/1955 from which A.S. 342/1966 arises was a suit instituted for declaration of the plaintiff's title and possession of S. No, 154/7B and for injunction to restrain the execution of the decree in O.S. 101/1102 of the Kottayam District Court. O.S. 361/1953 from which A.S. 341/1966 arises was a suit for mesne profits filed by defendants 1 and 4 in O.S. 531/1955 for, unlawful taking possession of the plaint property in O.S. 531/1955 in execution of the decree in O.S. 661/1093 of the Thiruvalla Munsif's Court. O.S. 392/1956 from which A.S. 343/66 arises was a suit for similar relief of a subsequent "period. Counsel on both sides are agreed that a decision in A.S. 342/1966 would dispose of the other two appeals.

The plaintiff's case in O.S. 531/1955 was as follows: S. No. 154/7B belong, ed to the plaintiff's illom. It was leased under Ext. J to the Ist defendant's Koikkal on 7-2-1025 M. E. and was subsequently mortgaged to it under Ext. K on 7-7-1038 M.E. The Koikkal in turn sub-mortgaged the property on" on 5-11-1089 to Padinjare Matom. The plaintiff's illom subsequently got itself divided into two branches under Ext. H, a compromise decree passed in O.S. 214/1084. By the compromise S. No. 154/7B was allotted to the branch of plaintiff's grandfather. He instituted O. S.661/1093 in the Thiruvalla Munsif's Court, on behalf of the illom, to redeem Exts. J and K. By Ext. C judgment demtion was allowed and under Ext. E the property was taken delivery of. Thereafter the plaintiff's grandfather leased the property under Ext. G to the 2nd defendant's father on 7-11-1097. A member of the 1st defendant Koikkal instituted, O.S. 101/1102 in the District Court, Kottayam, for setting aside the sub-mortgage in favour of Padinjare Matom. That suit was later on amended in 1106 by adding a prayer to set aside the decree and execution proceedings in. P.S. .661 of 1093 after impleading the plaintiff's grandfather. When the plaintiff's grandfather died in 1109 the plaintiff's father, the 3rd defendant here, was impleaded in that suit as the 12th defendant. Both of them remained ex parte and; the suit was decreed on 13 111111 (vide Ext.D). The Koikkal became divided by the compromise decree evidenced by Ext. IV dated 14 111116 under which the 1st defendant obtained the suit property. He got himself impleaded as the additional decree holder in O. S.101/1102 and sought to execute that decree. While the execution proceedings were pending he assigned the suit property to defendants 4 and 5 by Ext. XI dated 18101954.In the partition in the plaintiff's illom under Ext. F, 5. No. 154/78 was allotted to the plaintiff and S. No, 154/7 A to his father. The plaintiff, alleging that the illom was not bound by the decree in O. S.101/1102, as it was not obtained in conformity with the provisions of S.12 of the Malayala Brahmins Act, Act 3 of 1106, instituted O. S.531/i955 to restrain the execution of the decree in O. S.101/1102 by a permanent injunction.

3. Defendants 1, 4 and contended that the suit property never belonged to the plaintiff's illom, that the illom has been properly represented in O. -S. 101/1102, and that the plaintiff was not entitled to any relief.

The Munsif's Court found that the decree in O. S.101/1102 was not bind ing on the plaintiff's illom, as it was: not obtained in conformity with S.12 of the Malayala Brahmins Act, Act 3 of 1106; and therefore, decreed the suit. This decree was confirmed in appeal by the Subordinate Judge. The second appeal filed by defendantsl, 4 and 5 was dismissed by the learned single judge.

4. The first question for consideration in the appeals is whether the decree in O. S.101/1102 in so far as it set aside the decree in O. S.661/1093 was binding on the plaintiff. S.12 of the Malayala Brahmins Act which came into force on 8 61106 reads as follows:

"No decree shall bind an illom unless it is obtain