plaintiff instituted the suits against the tenants seeking the decree of injunction, prohibitory and also mandatory. Prohibitory injunction was sought for to restrain the tenants from putting up any construction to the tenanted structure and mandatory injunction for removal of the unauthorised construction already put up. The defendant in the respective suit resisted the suit claims on various grounds in which among other contentions they also impeached the competency of the executive officer to represent the devaswom and institute the suit for the reliefs canvased. On the issues raised by the trial court, stemming upon the pleadings of the parties, both sides let in evidence. The executive offficer of the devaswom was examined as a witness and Ext.A12 authorisation issued by the devaswom was produced and exhibited in the case to prove its competency. The trial court, being satisfied from the materials produced that the devaswom is entitled to the decree of injunction, both prohibitory and mandatory applied for, allowed both suits. In the appeals preferred by the tenants, A.S No.11/2006 and A.S No.224/2005, after hearing both of them together and reappreciating the materials on record, the learned Additional District Judge, Thalassery, concurring with the findings entered by the trial judge confirmed the decree and dismissed such appeals. These second
