IMPORTANT POINT
The principle of res judicata prevents parties from maintaining appeals against judgments that have not been challenged in related cases, ensuring judicial finality.

JUDGMENT :

M.A. Abdul Hakhim, J.

1. The appellants are the defendants 1 to 4 and the respondents are the plaintiffs & the 5th defendant in O.S No. 1132/2015 before the Trial Court.

2. The 1st plaintiff is a Temple represented by its Secretary and the 2nd plaintiff is a Society represented by its Secretary. OS 1132/15 was filed by the plaintiffs seeking a declaration of title and permanent prohibitory injunction with respect to the plaint schedule property of 2.5 cents of land. According to the plaintiffs, the 1st plaintiff temple came into existence under the leadership and supervision of the 2nd plaintiff in the year 1985. The 1st plaintiff - Temple is in the management of the 2nd plaintiff. The defendants are also members of the 2nd plaintiff. They were the office bearers of the 2nd plaintiff for a certain period. The plaint schedule property of 2.5 cents, is a Temple/Kavu dedicated by one Sri.Mani @ Ponnan and Smt. Lakshmi Ammal as per Ext.A1 and A2 unregistered documents dated 26.11.1995. The 2nd plaintiff Society took possession of the plaint schedule property, used to conduct poojas and other religious ceremonies in the plaint schedule property. The plaintiffs have got absolute title and ownership over the plaint schedule property by the law of adverse possession and limitation.

3. The defendants 1 to 4 are the children of the said Lakshmi Ammal and the 5th defendant is the said Sri. Mani @ Ponnan. They resisted the suit. The defendants 1 to 4 filed a Written Statement, contending inter alia that they derived title and possession of the plaint schedule property as per Ext.B1 document executed by Smt. Lakshmi Ammal. They are also devotees of the 1st plaintiff temple. The plaint schedule property is situated 1.5 km away from the 1st plaintiff temple. The plaintiffs never acquired possession of the plaint schedule property.

4. O.S No. 1132/15 was jointly tried with O.S No.1323/15 instituted by the 3rd defendant in O.S No. 1132/15 against the plaintiffs in O.S.No.1132/2015. O.S. No.1323/15 was also filed seeking a declaration of title and permanent prohibitory injunction with respect to the plaint schedule property of 4.450 cents of land which includes part of the plaint schedule property in O.S. No. 1132/2015. As per plaint averments in O.S. No.1323/15, the plaint schedule property is devolved upon the plaintiff and his brothers on the death of their mother Smt. Lakshmi Ammal.

5. Both the suits were jointly tried treating O.S. No.1132/2015 as the leading case. The Trial Court disposed of both the suits as per the common judgment dated 31.01.2020, dismissing both the suits.

6. O.S. No.1132/2015 was dismissed holding that though the evidence on record would probabilize the case of the dedication of the property in favour of the 1st plaintiff pleaded by the plaintiffs, the suit as framed in the name of the Temple is not maintainable and the 2nd plaintiff is not proved to be the administrative body of the 1st plaintiff.

7. O.S.No.1323/2015 was dismissed, holding that the plaintiff therein failed to prove the exclusive possession and enjoyment over the plaint schedule property, which is D schedule property in Ext. B1 Partition deed.

8. The plaintiffs in O.S. No.1132/2015 filed A.S. No. 68/2020 before the First Appellate Court. Before the First Appellate Court, the plaintiffs did not press the declaratory relief. The First Appellate Court allowed the appeal in part declaring that the appellants are entitled to get an order of permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants from trespassing into the plaint schedule property and committing any waste or mischief therein and not to prevent or make any obstruction to the plaintiffs of the peaceful possession and enjoyment and discharging the duties of the Temple. The First Appellate Court specifically found that the plaintiffs are in possession of the dedicated property and that they have been performing temple festivals in the disputed Kavu and that there is no evidence that the d