partition deed and sale deeds were invalid and plaintiffs did not get any title or possession over the suit properties. It was further contended that Munsiff court had no pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the suit. It was contended that there was an ancient temple situated in the suit property. On the south of the temple a building termed as 'madappally' and office of the temple are situated. The deity in the temple is 'Sreebhagavathi'. It was also contended that about 20 feet south-west of the temple there is another 'Ganapathi temple' and on south of that temple there is 'Nagaprathishta' and on the south of Nagaprathishta there is 'Yakshiyammathara' also. It was further contended that Nagaprathishta, Yakshiyammathara, etc. were situated at 50 feet away from the 'Sreebhagavathi' temple. A permanent stage was constructed prior to 1982 for conducting the annual festival of the temple. It was also contended that on the north of temple there was a well which was exclusively used for taking water for temple purposes. It was further contended that on the south of these structures there was a canal having two feet width and four feet depth. Over the property situated on the north of that canal the plaintiffs never got title or possession and that property exclusively belonged to the temple. It was also contended that ten feet east of Madappally there was another canal having five feet width and four feet depth. On the west of the permanent stage there is yet another canal having five feet width and four feet depth. It was further contended that the stage was constructed in the year 1982 and the Madappally, office of the temple, Nagaprathishta, etc. came into existence prior to 1982. It
