JUDGMENT : Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. These two intra-court appeals arise from an appeal and cross objection which arose from the dismissal of a suit filed for declaration, recovery of possession and mandatory injunction. The suit was instituted by two persons with permission having been granted under Order I Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The action was levied before the trial court, purportedly on behalf of the Hindu Brahmins residents of Pallippuram Village in Palakkad District. However, the sum and substance of the suit was for relief of declaration that the plaint A schedule property belongs to Pallippuram Lakshminarayana Devaswom and that it does not belong to Pallippuram Grama Samooham. The other reliefs sought for were consequential. 3. The afore noted Devaswom is an entity, in the form of an institution, which has all the colours of trust. It is a resultant trust. If it is on behalf of a community, and; going by the manner in which the pleadings are placed by the plaintiffs before the trial court; the suit ought to have been either on behalf of a deity or if proper reliefs are claimed in terms of Section 92 of CPC in relation to management and securing the properties, it should have gone under Section 92 of CPC. 4. The trial court dismissed the suit also holding under point No.4 that from the evidence there is nothing to come to a positive finding on the issue as to whether the Devaswom has lost title by adverse possession and limitation. 5. In the first appeal and cross objections carried to this Court, the provisions of Order I Rule 8 of CPC were not complied with. That is a mandatory requirement to sustain the appeal, or the cross objections, as the case may be, arising out of matters which were carried forward in the trial court with permission under Order I Rule 8 of CPC. That not having been done, in re the first appeal and the cross objections, the learned single Judge ought not to have adjudicated on those appeal and cross objections. 6. Not only that, no reliefs purely declaratory in nature could have been granted in an ill-constituted appeal and cross objections. That not having been done, in re the first appeal and the cross objections, the learned single Judge ought not to have adjudicated on those appeal and cross objections. 6. Not only that, no reliefs purely declaratory in nature could have been granted in an ill-constituted appeal and cross objections. The decree as such has now been passed by the learned single Judge, would only confuse matters relating to the eligibility of the deity as a juristic person; or that of the Devaswom; to seek declaration of title or to seek recovery of possession in accordance with law, in appropriate jurisdiction. 7. For the aforesaid reasons, we are of the view that the impugned decree granted by the learned single Judge has to be vacated, to secure the ends of justice. In the result, these appeals are allowed setting aside the impugned judgment of the learned single Judge in to and leaving the parties as well as the Devaswom or Grama Samooham, as the case may be, with liberty to raise all issues in appropriate jurisdiction, if and when necessary, in accordance with the laws.