The main legal point established in the judgment is the validity and binding nature of kanom deeds granted by the Devaswom, as well as the application of the Hindu Religious Endowments Act and the limitation period for suits against such deeds.

G. Kumara Pillai, J.

1. This second appeal arises out of a suit brought by the manager of the Mavundasseri Devaswom appointed by the Hindu Religious Endowments Board, Madras, for recovery of possession of three items of properties belonging to the said Devaswom.

2. According to the plaint allegations, two tarwads known as Mele Mundakkot and Keezhe Mundakkot are the hereditary trustees of he Devaswom. Defendant 1 is the present karnavan of Mele Mundakkot tarwad. On account of the mismanagement by the trustees the Hindu Religious Endowments Board framed a scheme, Ext. A4, on 12-9-1935, for the management of the Devaswom affairs, and the plaintiff has been appointed as manager under the said scheme by Ext. Al order dated 18-5-1943. On 7-10-1930 the then karnavans of the two trustee tarwards, in their capacity as ooralans of the Devaswom, executed a kanom deed, Ext. A10, in favour of defendant 1 for the plaint schedule properties, and defendant 1's tarwad which is one of the trustee tarwads is in possession of the properties, pretending to be under the said kanom. This kanom deed and a subsequent purakkadam Ext. A11, executed on 23-3-1943, are not binding on the Devaswom as they were executed by the trustees for defrauding the Devaswom and contrary to the orders issued by the Hindu Religious Endowments Board under section 76 of the Hindu Religious Endowments prohibiting the trustees from making alienations except with the Board's are also not supported by consideration and necessity binding on the Devaswom. Ext. A10 purports to be the renewal of a prior kanom executed in 1022 M. E., but really there was no such kanom, and so, the document is invalid and not supported by any consideration. On these allegations the plaintiff brought the suit for recovery of possession of the plaint properties with past and future mesne profits.

3. Defendant 1 and some other members of his tarwad, i.e., defendants 2 to 5, contested the suit. They contended that their tarwad, Mele Mundakkot tarwad, was holding the properties on kanom from the Devaswom even before Ext. A10, that Exts. A10 and A11 were perfectly valid and binding on the Devaswom, and that plaintiff was not therefore entitled to recover possession of the properties. The suit was also resisted on the ground that, in any event it was barred by limitation. Defendants 1 to 5 had also other contentions but in view of the conclusions we have arrived at on the contentions mentioned above it is not , necessary to refer to the other ontentions here.

4. The trial court found that Ext. A10 and All were not valid and binding on the Devaswom and that there was no prior kanom of 1022 M. E. as mentioned in Ext. A10. Nevertheless, it held that Mele Mundakkot tarwad was holding the properties under certain prior kanoms, long prior to Ext. A10, and that defendant 1 and other members of the tarwad were not trespassers and were not liable to be evicted from the properties. Consequently it dismissed the suit with costs. Against the trial court's decree the plaintiff filed an appeal which was disposed of by the Subordinate Judge of Ottapalam on 6-12-1948. The Subordinate Judge confirmed the decree of the trial court and dismissed the plaintiff's appeal asking him to pay the costs of the defendants. Against the Subordinate Judge's appellate decree the plaintiff filed a second appeal in the Madras High Court, and the Madras High Court set aside the Subordinate Judge's judgment and decree remanded the case to the lower appellate court for rehearing and fresh disposal of the appeal filed against the trial court's decree. After the remand the appeal was heard by the Subordinate Judge of South Malabar and he allowed the appeal on 29-9-1954 decreeing the suit practically in term of the plaint. Against the appellate decree of the Subordinate Judge of South Malabar the members of defendant 1's tarwad have filed this second appeal.

5. Although the defendants have not been able to prove the specific prior kanom, i.e.