The main legal point established in the judgment is that the suit for declaration of title and injunction was maintainable despite the provisions of S.20A of the Land Conservancy Act, and the plaintiff's title was not lost by adverse possession.

D. Sreedevi, J.

S.A.191/90

1. This appeal is directed against the decree and judgment in A.S. No. 2/86 of the Additional Sub court, Quilon, which was filed against the decree and judgment in O. S. No. 195/79 of the Munsiff's Court, Adoor. The fourth and additional 12th defendants before the Trial Court are the appellants. The plaintiff, defendants 1 to 3, 5 to 11, 13 & 14 are the respondents herein.

2. The plaintiff is the Travancore Devaswom Board (hereinafter referred to as 'the Board'). The Board has filed the above suit for declaration of title to the plaint A schedule property, for dismantling and removing the plaint B schedule Erumadams and sheds etc. from plaint A schedule property and for recovery of possession of the same with mesne profits and also for perpetual injunction and for consequential reliefs.

3. The plaintiff's case, in brief, is this: The plaint schedule property belongs to the plaintiff. The said property, having an extent of 1 acre 18 cents, originally belonged to Chakkuvalli Temple and later it vested with the plaintiff. The plaintiff has filed the above suit on the allegation that defendants 1 to 11 trespassed into 6 cents of property and put up sheds and Erumadams. It is alleged in the plaint that the plaintiff has come to know of the trespass for the first time only on 15.1.1977.

4. Defendants 1 to 4, 6, 11, 12, 14 and 15 contested the suit. Defendants 1 to 4, 6 and 11 would contend that they are doing business on the western side of Sasthamcotta Charummodu road. The Chakkuvalli Parabrahmam is on the eastern side of the Sasthamcotta Charummodu road. The property in their possession, according to him, is not part of Chakkuvalli Temple compound and it is not under the control and administration of the Devaswom. Thus the defendants claim possession over the property for a long period of time. They are paying the prohibitory tax to the Government from a long time past and were conducting business. They would also contend that even if the plaintiff had any right over the property, that has been lost by adverse possession. Additional defendants 12, 14 and 15 filed separate written statements. The contentions are similar to that of the first defendant.

5. The Trial Court, after taking evidence, held that the plaint schedule property belonged to the Devaswom. The Court also held that defendants 1 to 4, 8 to 10 and 12 were in possession of the property for more than a period of 12 years and that the plaintiff's title has been lost by adverse possession in respect of B Schedule items 1 to 4, 8 to 10 and 12. It also held that the suit was for recovery is not maintainable under S.20A of the Land Conservancy Act. The Trial Court declared the plaintiff's title over the plaint B schedule items. Aggrieved by the said decree and judgment, the plaintiff filed A. S. 2/86 before the Additional Sub Court, Quilon. The learned Sub Judge set aside the findings of the Trial Court so far as it relates to the recovery of possession from the hands of the defendants and held that the suit is maintainable. Accordingly the suit was decreed declaring the title of the plaintiff over A Schedule property. The plaintiff was also allowed to demolish and remove the plaint B Schedule structures from the plaint A schedule property at the expenses of the defendants and to recover possession of the same from the defendant through court. Aggrieved by the said decree and judgment, the 4th and additional 12th defendant filed this appeal.

S.A. No. 258/90

6. This appeal is filed by defendants 1 to 3 and 5 to 11 against the very same decree and judgment. The facts of the case are similar to that of the above appeal.

7. The questions of law involved in these cases are the following:

i) Has not the lower Appellate Court gone wrong in holding that S.20A of the Land Conservancy Act is no bar to the suit?

ii) Was it not clearly illegal on the part of the court below to find that Ext. A1 settlement register, proved plaintiff's title to the A schedule prop