The essence of dedication in Hindu law requires explicit relinquishment of ownership, which was not established in this case, affirming the plaintiff's family ownership of the temple.

JUDGMENT

R.S.A.No.1178 of 2013 has been filed against the judgment and decree in A.S.No.313 of 2006 on the file of Additional District Court-I, Kottayam which in turn arise out of the judgment and decree in O.S.No.41 of 2002 on the file of Munsiff's Court, Ettumanoor. R.S.A.No.1177 of 2013 has been filed against the judgment and decree in A.S.No.314/2006 on the file of Additional District Court-I, Kottayam which in turn arise out of the judgment and decree in O.S.No.56/2002 on the file of Munsiff's Court, Ettumanoor.

2. Appellant in both appeals is the plaintiff in O.S.No.41/2002 and defendant in O.S.No.56/2002. (Parties would be referred as per their status in O.S.No.41/2002 before the trial court). O.S.No.41/2002 is a suit for permanent injunction for restraining the defendants from trespassing into the plaint schedule item Nos.1 and 2 properties and causing obstruction to the day to day rituals or affairs of the temple. In plaint schedule item No.1 Thiru Keralapuram Sreekrishnaswamy temple is situated which is comprised in Sy.No.277/21 of Peroor Village, Kottayam Taluk. It is a very old temple believed to be constructed by Cheraman Perumal nearly 1,000 years back and is referred in 'Aithihya Mala' of Kottarathil Sankunni. Plaint Schedule item No.2 is 73 Ares 70 sq.meters of property comprised in Sy.No.288/5 of Peroor Village lying appurtenant to the land of the temple and used for the temple purposes. Plaint schedule item Nos.1 and 2 are the properties of the family of late Sankaran Moothathu, father of the plaintiff. Administration, possession, enjoyment and ownership of the plaint schedule properties have been given to the family sakha to which Sankaran Moothathu, plaintiff's father belonged. He got absolute ownership and possession over plaint item Nos.1 and 2 through individual partition of the family Sakha in 1974. Temple has been set apart to the personal share of the plaintiff's father in the above partition deed. Sankaran Moothathu was continuously performing the rites and rituals of the temple with the consent of all the legal heirs of Sankaran Moothathu. Plaintiff appointed a poojari in the temple for performing day to day rituals of the temple. He is the sole administrator of the plaint schedule properties. Apart from the 'poojari' (santhikkaran), plaintiff also appointed a kazhakam. On 14.09.2001 at 5.30 p.m while the plaintiff was offering and performing pooja, defendants and 30 persons under him trespassed into the sanctum sanctorum of the temple and manhandled the plaintiff. A complaint was lodged in connection with the same at Ettumanoor police station. Again on 04.02.2002 when the plaintiff was offering pooja, defendants trespassed into the sanctom sanctorum of the temple and manhandled the plaintiff. They abused the poojari and kazhakam in filthy language and threatened to do away with the plaintiff. The attempt of the defendants is to interrupt the day to day poojas of the temple and wanted to take possession of the plaint schedule property and administration of the temple. They have no right over the plaint schedule property and administration of the temple. They are highly influential people in the locality and the plaintiff is unable to prevent the illegal acts of the defendants. Hence the suit.

3. Defendants filed written statement along with counter claim contending that the plaintiff or his family has no right or possession over the plaint schedule properties. Before two years of the partition of 1974 in the family of the plaintiff itself, plaintiff's predecessor dedicated the property to the people of the locality and thereafter the temple is being managed by a committee and the property is owned and administered by Keralapuram Devaswom. During 1940 when people had no faith there was no pooja in the temple. Thereafter, as consented by plaintiff's father, he dedicated the properties and the temple to the people of the locality during 1972. Thereafter, partition was effected in the family of plaintiff's