The appellant herein is defendant No.
The Trial Court, by judgment decree dated 21.08.1980 dismissed the suit.
1 plaintiff filed a civil suit S. No.
It was alleged that the suit land was purchased by respondent No.
It was, inter alia, averred in the plaint that respondent No.
It has its own bye laws to run the charitable institutions.
1 were always independent organizations having numberconnection between them in any manner.
In order to appreciate the companytroversy involved in the suit, which has number travelled up to this Court, it is necessary to state the relevant facts infra.
The plaintiff, felt aggrieved, filed Second Appeal being S.A. No.299 of 1987 before the High Court.
1, felt aggrieved, filed special leave petition SLP c No.24439 of 1995 before this Court.
Respondent No.
By judgment decree dated 29.05.1995, the High Court allowed the appeal and decreed the suit.
They are, therefore, numberlonger parties to the lis arising in the case.
Some more facts were also averred in the written statement, which are number necessary to mention here.
1 felt aggrieved and filed this appeal by way of special leave before this Court.
Respondent No.
On remand, the High Court framed three substantial questions and, by impugned order 27.01.2005, again allowed the appeal and decreed the plaintiffs suit.
The suit was for a declaration that the sale deed Document No.399 dated 09.02.1978 executed by defendant No.
1 which, according to them, was their branch of which defendant No.
1 being the parent organization in the name of the appellant defendant No.
2, who claimed to be the President of defendant No.1, had numberright, title and interest number had any authority to sell the suit land to anyone much less to defendant No.
It was alleged that since the appellant defendant No.
2 was one Kunju Panikan Narayanan since dead .
1 plaintiff is a Society registered as such under the Travancore Cochin Literary Scientific and Charitable Societies Act 12/1955 hereinafter referred to as the Act having their branches all over the State of Kerala.
He was alleged to be President of defendant No.
399 dated 09.02.1978 Annexure P hereinafter referred to as the suit land.
2 was the President at all relevant time.
The first Appellate Court, by judgment decree dated 02.09.1986, dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment decree of the Trial Court.
1 vide sale deed dated 09.02.1978.
The plaintiff respondent No.
According to defendant No.1, both plaintiff and defendant No.
Defendant No.
It was alleged that defendant No.
The appellant defendant No.1 denied the claim set up in the plaint and defended the sale deed executed in their favour by defendant No.
1 appellant .
The dispute in this case relates to land bearing Survey Number No.
1 whereas respondent No.
1 was merged as provided in the bye laws with respondent No.
2 to 8 are companycerned, they were made parties in appeal as legal representatives of original defendant No.
1 , after some time had stopped their activities due to some reasons, all the properties stood in the name of the appellant defendant No.
So far as respondent Nos.
Against this order, defendant No.
It is claimed to be running charitable institutions all over the State through their branches.
213/1978 against the appellant herein defendant No.1 and one Kunju Panicken Narayanan defendant No.
The plaintiff, felt aggrieved, filed first appeal being A.S. No.77 of 1981 before the Additional District Judge, Mavelikkara.
The appellant defendant number1 is alleged to be another body of persons known as Panoor 47 Atma Vidya Sabha having their place of working at a place called Panoor in the State of Kerala whereas defendant No.
1 plaintiff had purchased the suit land by registered sale deed Document No.2904 in the year 1951 for running their charitable activities through defendant No.
1 plaintiff , i.e., parent body.
1 then applied under Order 1 Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 hereinafter referred to as the Code and sought permission of the Court to allow them to prosecute the suit as a representative suit.
1 through defendant No.
1 in respect of the suit land be cancelled as being void and bad in law.
Defendant No.
1 appellant did number oppose the prayer and hence sanction to prosecute the suit seemed to have been granted to the plaintiff.
The Trial Court framed several issues on merits arising in the case.
2, who died pending this appeal but later by order dated 14.01.2009 their names were deleted from the array of the parties.
1 is the plaintiff.
991/1, situated in village Thrikkunnapuzha, District Alappuzha as described in detail with specifications in the Sale Deed, registered as Document No.
2 in favour of defendant No.
Abhay Manohar Sapre, J. This appeal is filed by the first defendant against the final judgment and order dated 27.01.2005 passed by the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in S.A. No.299 of 1987 whereby the appeal filed by the respondent plaintiff was allowed and the judgment and decree passed by the Courts Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by ASHA SUNDRIYAL Date 2017.09.05 below were set aside and the defendants were given 165549 IST Reason two months time to deliver the property to the plaintiff failing which the plaintiff shall be entitled to put the decree in execution.
