Srinivasa Ayyangar, J.

1. The appellant in this second appeal is defendant 1 and he was sued by the plaintiff for the recovery of possession of the suit land as a tenant thereof. It is clear that the land pertained to the Kallur Devaswom as the trustee of which the original plaintiff Kappiyur Swamiyar instituted the action. The plaintiff described himself also as the Muppil Sthanam in the Naduvil Madham. It is admitted before us that shortly after the institution of this suit the Durbar of the Maharajah of Cochin removed the plaintiff from his office as trustee of the Naduvil Madham. The Durbar also purported to appoint in his place in the said Madham one Azhakapra Swamiyar who is now respondent 6 in this second appeal. He was added as respondent in the lower appellate Court not on any application by him under Rule 10, Order 22, Civil P.C. or any other provision of law, but, so far as we are able to see, by the Court itself suo motu. The learned District Judge appears to have made such an order because of his having in connexion with some other litigation come to the conclusion that the said Azhakapra Swamiyar had succeeded not only to the trusteeship of the Nadhuvil Madham,