The main legal point established in the judgment is the determination of the maintainability of the suit under Section 92 CPC, the applicability of Sections 87 and 93 of the HR&CE Act, the bar of the claim of fixity of tenure by res judicata, and the issue of failure to re-present the plaint within a time limit. The court also emphasized the need to consider the plaintiffs' right to maintain the action without impleading the Deity and the issue of value of improvements.

These two appeals arise from O.S. No. 4 of 1983 on the file of the Sub Court, Tirur. A.S. No.549 of 1991 is filed by the plaintiffs in the suit. A.S. No.557 of 1991 is filed by defendants 2 and 5 in the suit.

Second defendant died subsequently and her legal representatives were impleaded.

2. Facts necessary for the disposal of the appeals are as follows: Plaintiffs, Trust Board Members of Karumankavu Devaswom Temple, had filed the suit for recovery of the suit properties on the following averments. Suit properties originally belonged to one Mongandampulath Tharawad. The Tharawad properties were partitioned as per document No.1347 of 1957. The suit properties were set apart to the Temple and included in A schedule item No.805. In the document it was provided that the seniormost male member of the family shall be Hereditary Trustee of the Temple. He was authorised to be in possession and management of the properties and he was directed to spent money for the affairs of the Temple. There was a specific provision in the deed prohibiting the Hereditary Trustee from alienating the properties of the Temple or handing over possession of the same to anybody so as to reduce the income. While third defendant was acting as the Trustee, the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Board constituted under the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Act, 1951 (for short "the HR&CE Act") declared the Temple as a public Temple. The third defendant was allowed to continue as the Hereditary Trustee. He acted against the interest of the Temple. So the Deputy Commissioner, H.R. & C.E. Kozhikode, removed third defendant from Trusteeship and appointed first plaintiff as the fit person. Third defendant was directed to hand over charge and properties and other assets of the Temple to the first plaintiff. Subsequently, as per order No.A2/1790/76 of the Deputy Commissioner, H.R. & C.E. dated 11.1976 all plaintiffs were appointed as members of Trust Board of Karumankavu Temple and they are continuing as such. Though third defendant was removed from trusteeship, he did not hand over the documents, properties, etc., to the members of the Trust Board. Third defendant in collusion with first defendant had obtained a purchase certificate in favour of first defendant in O.A. No.447 of 1973 from the Kondotty Land Tribunal. That certificate was fraudulently obtained and on the strength of the same, first defendant executed a sale deed in favour of second defendant. On the strength of that sale deed, second defendant and the fifth defendant, who is the husband of the second defendant, reduced the property into their possession. They sold a portion of the same to the 4th defendant. First defendant was never a tenant of the Temple properties. Third defendant, who was removed from the trusteeship, was creating documents for his personal gain. When the plaintiffs came to the know about the order of the Land Tribunal, they filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority (Land Reforms) and the same was pending. Certificate of purchase and the sale deed executed were fabricated without any legal effect and brought into existence by playing fraud on the Temple and hence those documents are not binding on the Temple or Temple properties. Defendants are not entitled to be in possession of the properties and the plaintiffs are entitled to get recovery of the same on the strength of title of the Temple for and on behalf of the Temple. Defendants 2 and 5 sold some portions of the suit properties to defendants 6, 7 and 8 and they are also claiming possession over some portions of the properties. Defendants 1, 4 and 5 were trying to alienate the properties to strangers and to commit waste in the properties. Hence the suit for recovery of the properties on the strength of the rights of the plaintiffs and for other reliefs.

3. Defendants 2 and 5 filed a joint written statement. Following were the material contentions raised by them. Suit was not maintainable. Pla