Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
A. Hariprasad

ORDER

A. Hariprasad, J.

1. When a suit is instituted before a court having no jurisdiction over the subject matter, is it possible, by act of the parties subsequent thereto, to validate its institution? This is the question of law arising in this revision petition.

2. Heard Sri. G. Krishna Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri. S. Sreekumar, learned Senior Counsel for the contesting respondents.

3. Defendants 2, 4 and 5 are the petitioners herein. Plaintiff and other defendants are the respondents, of which the plaintiffs are the contesting respondents. For clarity and convenience, the parties are referred to as the defendants and plaintiffs hereinafter.

4. Brief facts:

Plaintiffs contended that Sree Krishna Swamy Devaswom, the subject matter of the dispute, was founded in 1879 by Maharashtra Brahmins, settled in Mattancherry. It is also contended that the temple was being managed by managing trustees nominated from among the members of the community from time to time. On 27th Makaram 1122 M.E, the general body had taken a decision relating to the day to day administration of the temple and thereafter Sri. Vishnu Pandit was appointed as Adhikari of the temple for a period of one year. He managed to be at the helm of affairs of the temple for a period of 30 years. Thereafter, members of the community detected misappropriation of assets of the temple and mismanagement of its affairs. It was revealed in an enquiry conducted by the first defendant Cochin Devaswom Board (in short 'the Board') that Sri. Vishnu Pandit continued in office as Adhikari without any authority and he committed utter mismanagement. On 26-09-1977, the Board directed Sri. Vishnu Pandit to vacate the management and also directed the committee to conduct an election for constitution of a new management committee. As directed by the first defendant Board, ten member management committee was constituted from among the members of Maharashtra Brahmin Community settled in Mattancherry. The committee submitted an audited accounts before the Board as the temple is a "controlled institution" within the meaning of Travancore - Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950 (in short 'the Act'). On 01-01-1980, the then managing committee prepared a scheme for management and administration of the temple and the same was submitted before the Board. The affairs of the temple are now being run on the basis of the scheme. According to the plaintiffs, they are entitled to manage and administer the temple as trustees. Hence, the suit with following prayers:

"a. Declaring that the affairs of the 1st plaintiff is to be managed and administered by the trustees selected from the members of the Maharashtra Brahmin community members permanently settled in Mattanchery in terms of the proceedings of the 1st defendant dated 10.04.1978 and that the 1st plaintiff has no hereditary trustees for administration of the 1st plaintiff-temple and defendants have no manner of right to interfere with the administrative affairs of 1st plaintiff-Devaswom.

b. To set aside the proceedings of the 1st defendant dated 27-01-2009 as unauthorized and unwarranted.

c. Declare that the chattapathram dated 5.1.1075 M.E. is a concocted/fabricated and therefore unenforceable in law or ........