suits. Appellants claimed to be representatives of Kappoth
Kavu Devaswom to which schedule properties allegedly belonged. In
O.S.No.215 of 1988 the suit ... contended that
appellants have no right or authority to represent the Devaswom, suit properties
are not identifiable and that he got title and possession
hence along with other
trustees in joint possession of property of the Devaswom,
movable and immovable. While so another trustee filed
Annexure-B, complaint against ... petitioner alleging that petitioner
trespassed into property of the Devaswom and committed
mischief by demolishing the fence causing loss to the Devaswom.
Learned Judicial First
Plaintiff
while contenting that that property belonged to and in possession of
the Devaswom and Kari Kunhappa had no right, pleaded that
defendant ... disputed by the defendant that Jenm of the
property is vested with Keezthully Devaswom, plaintiff. Contention
of defendant is that Kari Kunhappa was in possession
material issue in view of the contention
raised by the Devaswom?
3) Whether property has been properly
and suitably identified?"
3. It is contended ... southern
boundary of property in the Partition Deed (Ext.A1) is Devaswom
Kunnu Cherivu Parambu and Thekkeppattu Kudiyirippu but what
plaintiff filed the suit demanding
partition of the suit property. He claimed that the suit property
belonged to his father, the late Kunhiraman Nambiar ... property. He claimed that he acquired
leasehold right over the suit property under an oral lease in the
year, 1960 from Elampilad Paradevatha Devaswom
cents originally belonged to Sri. Mannampuram Kavil Bhagavathi Devaswom
on jenm. The suit property was taken on moolageni right by Chuzhali Kizhakke
Veettil Raman Aithan ... suit property. 75 cents
including the suit property originally belonged to Kizhakke Veettil Raman Aithan
Ashari (under the jenmi Mannampuram Kavil Bhagavathi Devaswom
unassessed; but does not include land, the properties
of land holders such as Jenmies, Devaswoms, or holders of Inam
lands; also all holdings of land
SAHIDA, D/O.AHAMMEDKUTTY HAJI,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THRIKKARIYOOR DEVASWOM, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
2. THRIKKARIYOOR DEVASWOM, FIT PERSONS
3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED ... year 1996, respondent-Devaswom filed a
suit for recovery of possession of property in the Sub Court, Manjeri alleging that
petitioner
behalf of the Chammanattu Devaswom. The Land
Tribunal held that petitioner is a cultivating tenant of SM schedule
property and accordingly assigned landlord ... property
was given to the petitioner not for cultivation but for running a
school and if necessary to construct further buildings in the
property
that the Executive Officer has the power to represent
the Devaswom but there is no provision disabling him from doing so.
Courts below have adverted ... Executive Officer has the power to institute suit and recover
property of the Devaswom. If that be so contention of the appellant
that Executive Officer
