The sale deed was void due to the vendors lacking authority, and the suit was filed within the permissible limitation period, thus not barred.

JUDGMENT

The defendants, in OS No.1433 of 1990 on the files of the First Additional Munsiff Court, Ernakulam, are the appellants herein.

2. The suit was filed for recovery of possession, mesne profits and setting aside Ext.A5 document dated 28.08.1978, if found necessary.

3. As per the plaint averments, the 1^st plainti Mukkottil Bhagavathi Devaswom, represented by its Manager who was appointed by the Sub Court in a scheme suit, OS No.137 of 1977. Later, as per the final decree in the said suit, the Mukkottil Bhagavathy Devaswom Bharana Samithi took over the administration of the plaintiff Devaswom. The plaint schedule property belongs to the Mukkottil Bhagavathi Devaswom, which is a private Devaswom of Kakkanam Veettil Tharavadu. In view of the mismanagement of the affairs of the Devaswom, some of the members of the Tharavadu instituted a suit as OS No.137 of 1977. Initially, Adv.T.Sankunni Menon was appointed as an interim manager and he assumed charge on 31.01.1979 and later a preliminary decree was passed on 07.03.1980 upholding the necessity to frame a proper scheme. OS No.331 of 1977 was also preferred against one Bhaskara Menon and another Ramankutty Menon and was also tried along with the aforesaid suit. While the suit was pending, Bhaskara Menon and Ramankutty Menon assigned certain landed properties belonging to the Devaswom without any necessity or benefit to the Devaswom. After assuming charge on 31.01.1979, Sri.Sankarankutty Menon, the Manager, went to take possession of lands which were resisted by the assignees who were put in possession by Bhaskara Menon and Ramankutty Menon. During the pendency of OS No.137 of 1977, I.A No.3283 of 1979 was preferred, wherein the Sub Court, Ernakulam, directed the Manager to take all necessary steps to set aside the transfer and to protect the interest of the Devaswom. The plaint schedule property was item No.8 in the list of properties directed to be recovered. It is further alleged that the deceased Bhaskara Menon and Ramankutty Menon were not karanavars or Managers of the Kakkanam Veettil tharavadu or any of its thavazhies and therefore there was no necessity for devaswom to alienate the properties. Therefore, it is contended that the plaintiffs were entitled to recover the plaint schedule property and get the sale deed No.2584/1978 of SRO, Ernakulam set aside, if found necessary. The defendants appeared and contested the suit and contended that they are bonafide assignors of the property. It was further contended that the suit filed for setting aside the document is clearly beyond the law of limitation. It is also contended that the suit was bad for non-joinder of the parties.

4. On behalf of the plaintiffs, Exts.A1 to A5 documents were produced and on behalf of the defendants, Exts.B1 to B6 documents were produced. C1 and C1(a) are the commission report and sketch of the Advocate Commissioner. PW1 was examined on behalf of the plaintiffs and DW1 was examined on behalf of the defendants.

5. The trial court on the basis of the material evidence and pleadings, framed the following issues:-

"i. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover vacant possession of the plaint schedule property from the defendant on the strength of title?

ii. Whether plaintiff is entitled to recover mesne profit as prayer for?

iii. Relief and costs?"

6. On consideration of the evidence adduced by the parties, the trial court came into a conclusion that the suit is hit by limitation and thus dismissed the suit. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree, dismissing the suit, the plaintiffs preferred AS No.9 of