A deity, being a perpetual minor, holds title to its assets; a worshipper may institute a suit as a next friend to recover property when a trustee acts fraudulently or fails to protect the trust, allowing the court to grant necessary relief through its inherent protective jurisdiction.

JUDGMENT :

EASWARAN. S., J.

1.These appeals and cross objections raise common issue and hence are being considered together.

Facts of the case

2. The appellants in RSA No.420/2012 are the defendants 19 to 23, 26 & 27 in OS No.72/1997 on the files of Munsiff’s- Magistrate's Court, Pattambi, a suit for declaration, injunction and for eviction filed representing the devotees of the Deity of Govindapuram Vishnu Temple. The appellants in RSA No.759/2011 are the defendants 3 & 4 in the said suit. The plaint schedule properties belong to the Govindapuram Temple Idol. The original Ooralan (trustee) of the Temple was one Sankaran Namboothiri. In 1899, a registered Kanam deed was executed in respect of 1 Acre 40 cents of property in favour of one Govindan Nair. On 9.4.1964, the lessee surrendered the lease in favour of the Idol represented by its trustee, Sankaran Namboothiri, by executing a registered document No.529/1964 (Ext.A1). It appears that proceedings were initiated for declaration of the temple as a public temple in terms of Section 57(a)of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951, which resulted in an order (Ext.B13) passed by the Deputy Commissioner of HR & CE, Kozhikode on 27.11.1978 declaring the Govindapuram Temple as a public religious institution. OS No.19/1976 on the files of the Munsiff-Magistrate’s Court, Pattambi was instituted by the Govindapuram Temple represented by Parameswaran Namboothiri, S/o. Narayanan Namboothiri against the second defendant herein for recovery of possession on the ground that he had trespassed into the plaint schedule property. By judgment dated 15.1.1979, the suit was decreed. Later, the second defendant preferred an appeal as AS No.25/1979 before the first appellate court, which was also dismissed. Though it is stated that an appeal was preferred before this Court, and that during the pendency of the appeal, the matter was compromised between the trustee of the Govindapuram Temple and the second defendant, no evidence is produced to prove the said fact. The 2^nd defendant claimed that, the right, title and interest over the item No.2 of the plaint schedule property was assigned in his favour in the year 1985 and that he had proceeded to mortgage the property with the Vallappuzha Service Co-operative Bank Limited. Later, when the bank initiated proceedings for the purpose of recovery of the debt, an award was passed in terms of the provisions of the Kerala Co- operative Societies Act, 1969 and the same was put to execution. In the execution, the Bank themselves purchased the property. However, it is stated that, later the Bank had re-conveyed the property to the original second defendant after receipt of the due amount. The appellants in RSA No.420/2012 claim title under the original second defendant by stating that the second defendant is entitled to possess the property by virtue of a registered document No.1006/1985 of the Sub Registrar’s Office, Pattambi (