DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, J.

1. A suit stands dismissed by the trial court as being not maintainable, against which this appeal has been made before this court - A rather ubiquitous scenario which appear quotidian.

2. However the appellant alleges that the suit was so dismissed by the court below even though no issue as to maintainability had been framed and though the defendants in the suit had not requisitioned such issue to be framed. The appellant alleges that the suit was tried without such an issue being framed and, therefore, that the court below has erred in condemning the suit as being not maintainable.

3. The plaintiff in a suit filed for injunction and damages is the appellant in this appeal.

4. The appellant filed O.S.No.18 of 2007 on the files of the Sub Court, Pathanamthitta claiming that his machinery, which includes a copra drying unit, that was permitted to be installed in the premises of the holy Sannidhanam of the Sabarimala Temple by the Travancore Devaswom Board (for short 'the Board'), was being attempted to be removed forcefully and that in such process he had sustained certain amount in loss and damage. Essentially on such allegations, the suit was instituted initially before the vacation court, viz. the District Court, Pathanamthitta, to be filed before the Munsiff's Court, Ranni. The suit was originally numbered as O.S.No.1 of 2004. To begin with, the prayer was for injunction simplicitor. The plaint was thereafter amended by the appellant to bring in a claim for an amount of Rs. 25,00,000/- as damages on the allegation that his copra drying unit and other infrastructure had been demolished and deracinated by the Board. The suit was thereafter transferred to the Sub Court, Pathanamthitta and numbered as O.S.No.18 of 2007.

5. The respondents in their written statement filed in the court below, took a contention that since no notice was issued by the appellant to them, under the mandate of section 55 of the Travancore Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), prior to the institution of the suit, the suit itself became incompetent and incapable of prosecution. Since the hypothesis of the respondents' case rests on section 55 of the Act, it would be profitable to read the said section and therefore we extract the same as under:

"55. Suits.—No suit shall be instituted against the Board or the executive officer of the Sree Padmanabhaswamy Temple until the expiration of two months after a notice in writing has been delivered or left at the office of the Board, or of the executive officer, as the case may be, stating the cause of action, the relief sought, and the name and place of abode of the intending plaintiff, and the plaint shall contain a statement that such notice has been so delivered or left."

6. As we have already indicated above, the suit originally was filed by the appellant praying for a decree of injunction simplicitor. It is alleged by the appellant that at the time when that suit was pending, attempts were made by the Board to remove the machinery and infrastructure, on the allegation that the sanction given to the appellant for such purpose had been withdrawn by them and that notices had been issued to him on 23.9.2003 and 26.9.2003 directing him to remove the machinery from the premises and to vacate himself. When the appellant did not do so, it appears that the respondents took action for removing the articles and in causing the plaintiff to be vacated from the Sannidhanam premises. On such events happening, the appellant transpires to have amended the plaint to bring in a claim for damages, alleging that he had sustained loss to the tune of Rs. 25 Lakhs on account of the alleged illegal action of the Board.

7. The respondents/defendants filed a written statement, as stated above, wherein, in support of the jurisdictional objection raised by them, stated that no notice under section 55 of the Act was issued before the suit was instituted. They also