1. The plaintiff filed the suit for a declaratory and mandatory

injunction. The suit was decreed by the trial court. The

decree of the trial court was confirmed by the lower

appellate court. The second appeal is filed by defendants

2 to 6.

2. The plaint schedule property is 10 cents of land with a

school building in it. A school is run in the building. The

property originally belonged to one P.K.Kunhikannan. He

was the father of the plaintiff and Raghavan. Raghavan

died. Raghavan was the husband of the second defendant

and father of defendants 3 to 6. Kunhikannan executed

Ext A1 gift deed in favour of his wife Chirutha and

children. According to the plaintiff, the right of

management of the school was transferred to Chirutha. It

was also contended that the transfer came into effect

even before the gift deed. The plaintiff contended further

5

that item No.11 in Ext A1 gift deed was the plaint

schedule property. The defendant contended that item

No.11 in Ext A1 was a different property in a different

survey number, and not the school compound comprised

in survey No.92/7. Whatever it be, admittedly, till death in

1973, Chirutha was the manager of the school. Thereafter

Raghavan was the manager till his death in 1999. After

Raghavan, the fifth defendant was appointed the manager

by the department. The said appointment was challenged

by the plaintiff in the suit. According to the plaintiff, the

appointment of the fifth defendant as the manager was

without her knowledge and consent. It was also

contended by her that she should have been consulted

and her consent should have been taken before the

appointment of the manager.

3. Apart from the contentions of the defendants noted in the

earlier paragraph, they contented that the suit was barred

by Sec.33 of the Kerala Education Act. Although the

6

defendants raised a contention that Kunhikannan had

executed a will to bequeath the school and management

to Chirutha, the will was not produced and proved.

4. The trial court granted a decree declaring that the school

in the plaint schedule property was a thavazhi property

and that for effecting transfer of management and

correspondentship of the said school in the name of the

fifth defendant, written consent of all members of the

thavazhi was essential. By a decree of mandatory

injunction the seventh defendant was directed to give the

plaintiff a reasonable opportunity to raise her objection

and counter effectively in the matter of consideration of

the fifth defendant's application for transfer of

management and correspondent of the aforesaid school.

The decree of the trial court was taken in appeal, but the

appellants lost.

5. Heard Smt.M.A.Zohra, the learned counsel for the

7

appellants/defendants 2 to 6, Sri.V.Binoy Ram, the

learned counsel for the plaintiff and Sri. P.M.Satheesh, the

learned government pleader appearing for respondents 7

and 8 in the appeal.

6. The suit was filed challenging the appointment of the fifth

defendant as the manager of the school. He was

appointed the manager by the 7^th defendant/assistant

education officer, Panoor in Kannur district. The

defendants challenged the very maintainability of the suit.

The courts below did not accept the said contention.

Sec.9 of CPC provides that civil courts shall have

jurisdiction to try all suits of a civil nature barring suits of

which their cognizance is either expressly or impliedly

barred. The learned counsel for the appellants referred to

Secs 7 and 9 of the Kerala Education Act and Chapter III

and XXVIII of the Kerala Education Rules. There is no

express bar against a civil suit in those provisions. But

remedies by way of appeal to the appellate authority and

8

revision to the government are provided in the said Act

and Rules against the decision of the educational

authority appointing a manager. Therefore, according to

the learned counsel for the appellants, there is an implied

bar to c