Important Points:
• If properties are leased out without specifying the term of lease, such leases can be terminated and the properties can be recovered back from the lessees, if the lessors choose to recover the properties- This might be the reason why leases without specifying the term of lease were not interdicted in terms of the document-The term of lease and as it is seen that Ext.B3 is a lease without specifying the term of lease, it cannot be said to be invalid.
• Neither the deity nor the trustee is a party to a suit instituted by a worshipper for a declaration that the alienation is improper, the court cannot pass a decree permitting the worshipper to recover possession of the property of the deity for, if such a decree is passed, only the plaintiff therein could execute the same and in such an event, the property may or may not inure to the benefit of the temple and if the property does not go to the hands of the trustee, the trustee may have to file a suit again for the same-
• The possibility of the worshipper decree holder creating encumbrances over the property of the temple or committing waste therein on the strength of the decree obtained by him cannot also be ruled out.

These second appeals arise from O.S.No.619 of 1996 on the files of the Munsiff Court, Irinjalakuda. Among the appeals, S.A.No.744 of 1999 is by the first defendant in the suit and S.A.No.745 of 1999 is by the second defendant. The plaintiff in the suit is stated to be a member of an erstwhile Namboothiri illom. The plaint B schedule property is an item measuring 50 cents and the plaint C schedule property is an item measuring 40 cents. The plaint B and C schedule properties are portions of the plaint A schedule property. The case set out by the plaintiff in the plaint is that the plaint A schedule property is the property where one of the temples of the illom namely “Gokunnath Kshethram” (‘the temple’) is situated; that the management of the temple and its properties vests with the Karanavan of the illom in terms of Ext.A1 partition deed; that defendants 1 and 2 are possessing the plaint B and C schedule properties on the basis that they have leasehold interest over the same; that the Karanavan of the illom is not empowered to lease out temple properties; that the possession of the plaint B and C schedule properties by defendants 1 and 2 is, therefore, illegal, unauthorised and not binding on the illom or the temple and that being a member of the illom, the plaintiff is entitled to recover possession of the plaint B and C schedule properties from defendants 1 and 2 on behalf of the temple. The suit was, therefore, for a declaration that the possession of the plaint B and C schedule properties by defendants 1 and 2 is illegal, unauthorised and not binding on the illom or the temple and for recovery of possession of the same on behalf of the temple.

2. The first defendant contested the suit contending that the 90 cents comprising of the plaint B and C schedule properties was leased out by the Karanavan of the illom to one of its members namely Narayanan Namboodiri in terms of Ext.B3 lease deed as early as on 16/01/1113 ME; that the lessee Narayanan Namboodiri later assigned the leasehold interest over the plaint B Schedule property in terms of Ext.B1 assignment deed to the first defendant; that he obtained thereupon Ext.B2 purchase certificate in respect of the plaint B schedule property and thus became the absolute owner of the plaint B schedule property. According to the first defendant, he is possessing the plaint B Schedule property on that basis and even if it is found that the plaintiff or anybody else has any right over the said property, the same is lost by adverse possession and limitation.

3. The second defendant also contested the suit contending inter alia that Narayanan Namboodiri who obtained leasehold interest in the property in terms of Ext.B3 lease deed from the karanavan of the illom assigned the leasehold interest in respect of the plaint C schedule property to one Rugmini Antharjanam in terms of Ext.B8 assignment deed; that Rugmini Antharjanam in turn, assigned the rights obtained by her over the plaint C schedule property to one Chandramathi Amma in terms of Ext.B7 assignment deed; that Chandramathi Amma thereupon, obtained Ext.B9 purchase certificate in respect of the said property and that the second defendant purchased the plaint C schedule property thereafter from Chandramathi Amma in terms of Ext.B6 assignment deed. According to the second defendant, he has, therefore, become the absolute owner of the plaint C schedule property. The second defendant also raised a plea of adverse possession as raised by the first defendant.

4. The trial court found that the plaint B and C schedule properties are part of the temple premises; that Ext.B3 lease created by the then Karanavan of the illom being one against the terms of Ext.A1 partition deed, the same is invalid; that the purchase certificates obtained by the first defendant and Chandramathi Amma in terms of the Kerala Land Reforms Act are invalid as the provisions of Chapter III therein do not apply to temple premises in the light of S.3(i)(x) of the s