The court affirmed that property tied to temple services is inalienable and cannot be transferred without proper authorization, reinforcing the temple's ownership rights.

JUDGMENT

Defendants in a suit for declaration of plaintiff's title to the property and for perpetual prohibitory injunction succeeded in the trial court, but lost in the lower appellate court. Hence they are in second appeal.

2. Pleadings, in nutshell, are thus: Respondent/plaintiff is an incorporated body constituted under the Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950 (in short, “the Act”). Plaint schedule property belongs to and vested with the plaintiff Devaswom Board (in short, “Board”). The Board is competent to regulate management of the same in view of the provisions contained in the Act. Several lands belonging to and vested with the Board have been given in possession to various persons for rendering services to the temples managed by the Board. Their possession is directly linked to the services rendered and without doing any service, they are not entitled to hold land. The property in the plaint schedule was given as service tenure for doing services to Muttar Koottummel Ganapathy Temple. The person to whom the land was given in possession for rendering services to the temple (known as karanma holder) has no right to transfer or alienate the property without consent of the Board. It is the allegation that contrary to the stipulations in the grant and the relevant provisions in the Act, the grantee of karanma right in respect of plaint schedule property had alienated the property without prior sanction of the Board. The appellants claim right and interest through the alienees of karanma holder. The appellants, not being Hindus, are not rendering any service to the temple nor they have any right to do service. As per the provisions of Kerala Service Inam Lands (Vesting and Enfranchisement) Act, 1981 (in short, “the Act of 1981”), no karanma holder could exercise right in respect of the property, if he did not do any service to the temple. The appellants, who are not entitled to do any service to the temple, cannot enter the plaint schedule property on the ground that they acquired a right under a registered document. Proprietory right in the plaint schedule property still vests with the Board. As the appellants have no right, title or possession over the plaint schedule property, the respondent claimed the said reliefs against them on the assertion that the assignment in favour of the appellants is void abinitio.

3. The appellants/defendants filed a joint written statement contending that the suit is not maintainable as the plaintiff Board has no right or possession over the property. It is alleged that one Krishna Pillai got possession of the plaint schedule property by virtue of delivery in execution proceedings in O.S.NO.97 of 1098 ME of Munsiff's Court, Thiruvalla. He thereafter sold the property as per a document of the year 1118 ME. While so, husband of 5th defendant and father of other defendants purchased the said property in the year 1976. He caused to effect mutation and was in possession of the property till his death. After his death, the appellants are in possession and enjoyment of the property. 10 cents in survey No.159/11 was obtained by the predecessor-in-interest of the appellants as per a partition deed of the year 1960. According to the appellants, respondent has no manner of right over 30 cents comprised in survey No.159/10/2. Appellants admitted that no service to the temple was rendered by them or their predecessor-in-interest. There was no stipulation to this effect in the court auction. Since the appellants are not Hindus, they are not bound to do any service to the temple. Provisions in the Act of 1981 will not bind the appellants nor the property in their possession. Respondent/plaintiff is not entitled to get any declaration or injunction as claimed.

4. The substantial questions of law arising are thus-

i. Whether the lower appellate court was right in holding that the predecessor-in-interest of the defendants (appellants herein) is a karanma holder, when he got the plaint sche