JUDGMENT G.D. Dube, J. - The aforesaid two appeals arise from judgment and order of two Additional Civil Judges, Ghaziabad in Suit No. 1010 of 1989 Viddya Matri Mandir v. Rajinder Nath and Anr. on 25-8-1990, and Suit No. 1188 of 1990 Pradeep Kumar and Ors. v. Satya Pal Singh and Ors. on 3-9-1990. Both the suits are in respect of the same property. Since the matter involved in both the suits is common, we are deciding the two appeals together The Circumstances, under which we decided to dispose of the two appeals together, will appear from the facts narrated below. 2. In both the suits, the Plaintiffs had sought temporary injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in their peaceful possession over the same property in dispute. In suit No. 1188 of 1990, an additional prayer was made to restrain the Respondents form making only constructions over the land in dispute. The lower courts rejected both the applications. 3. Suit No. 1010 of 1989 was filed by Vidya Matri Mandir against Rajinder Nath and Satya Pal Singh on 6-11-1989. In this suit, the Plaintiff-Appellant and alleged that the land in dispute was a joint family property of which defendant No. 1 was a member having 1/6th share. On account of family settlement, Vidya Matri Mandir (herein after referred to as the Society) had paid the price of 1/6th share to defendant No. 1 and came into possession. The Society had constructed a Gaushala, orphange, boundary wall, houses for residence of employees and also the Samadhi of Chaudhari Chhabil Das who had been an Honourary Magistrate for a considerably long time. It was urged that the Society did not care to get the revenue records mutated. Consequently, the name of defendant No. 1 continued in the village papers. The defendant No. 1 intention became dishonest. The price of land of Ghaziabad started escalating. Hence he made some negotiations with defendant No. 2 and had also executed some documents in his favour. The defendant No. 2 planned to make constructions over the land and collected building material near the land in dispute. Hence the suit was filed. 4. The injunction application had been moved in the above suit on the above allegations. The defendants of suit No. 1010 of 1989 contested the matter and stated that the Plaintiff Society had no right and title over the plot in dispute. Hence the suit was filed. 4. The injunction application had been moved in the above suit on the above allegations. The defendants of suit No. 1010 of 1989 contested the matter and stated that the Plaintiff Society had no right and title over the plot in dispute. It was also urged that the Society is unregistered and it has no right to file the suit. The defendant No. 1 Rajinder Nath alleged that he has 1/6th share in the land in dispute and has got a right to make constructions according to his desire. 5. On hearing the parties, the learned Fifth Additional Civil Judge rejected the application on 25-8-1990 corning to the conclusion that the Plaintiff Society had no prima facie case. It was also held that balance of convenience also lay in favour of defendant No. 1 and he will suffer irreparable loss if injunction was granted. He against this judgment, F.A.F.O. No. 1198 of 1990 has been filed. 6. It transpires from the papers on record of two appeals on 30th August, 1990, Suit No. 1188 of 1990 was riled by Pradeep Kumar, Ashok Kumar, Vijay Kumar as Plaintiffs 1 to 3 and the aforesaid Society as Plaintiff No. 4 against the two defendants of Suit No. 1010 of 1989 and one Jagpal Singh. In the suit, some more facts relating to the property in dispute were indicated. It was stated that during the years 1959 and 1961, Swatantra Kumar, Ashok Kumar, Vijay Kumar (Plaintiffs), Rajinder Nath (defendant) alongwith Prem Nath and Surendra Kumar purchased the property in dispute. Each of them had 1/6th share. About twelve years back all the co-sharers sold some portions of the land in dispute leaving 2.357 acres only is their possession. After purchase of the land, it was agreed amongst Swatantra Kumar, Ashok Kumar, Vijay Kumer and Rajinder Nath to constitute the Society (Plaintiff No. 4). It was got registered on 4-5-1961 and the property of dispute was dedicated. There after, the Society constructed orphanage, Gaushala etc. It has been urged in the suit that after dedication and relinquishment of their interest by the co-sharers, defendant No. 3 had no right. However, in order to exploit and extract more money from the Plaintiffs, Defendant No. 3 filed suit No. 736 of 1989 in the court of Civil Judge,. There after, the Society constructed orphanage, Gaushala etc. It has been urged in the suit that after dedication and relinquishment of their interest by the co-sharers, defendant No. 3 had no right. However, in order to exploit and extract more money from the Plaintiffs, Defendant No. 3 filed suit No. 736 of 1989 in the court of Civil Judge,. Ghaziabad against Swatantra Kumar, Ashok Kumar and Vijay Kumar claiming his share in the property. It was urged that defendant No. 3 with the help of defendants 1 and 2 was trying to interfere in the possession of the Plaintiffs. On this allegation, a relief was claimed for permanent injunction to restrain the defendant perpetually from interfering in the possession and use and enjoyment by Plaintiff No. 4 over the property in dispute. On the above allegations, an application had also been filed for temporary injunction. 7. The application for temporary injunction had been opposed by defendant No. 3. He had alleged that on similar allegations the Plaintiff had filed Suit No. 1010 of 1989 and the temporury injunction application had been rejected by the court on 25-8-1990. The present suit was not maintainable. It was also urged that the Plaintiff had no right and title over the property in dispute. He had denied that he had received any price of his share in the property in dispute. He had denied that he had relinquished his share in the property in dispute in favour of the Society. 8. The Second Additional Civil Judge heard and disposed of this application on 3-9-1990. He too held that the Plaintiff had no prima facie case. It was also held that the findings and the order, dated 25-8-1990 in Suit No. 1010 of 1989 are still operative against the Society (Plaintiff No.). On this ground too the Society was not entitled to any injunction. 9. The Respondent has been served. All the material documents are on record. Hence with the consent of the parties counsel, we are disposing these two appeals at the very admission stage. From the facts narrated above, it is apparent that the facts in Suit No. 1188 of 1990 are the same 'as contained in Suit No. 1010 of 1989. Only the facts contained in suit No. 1010 of 1989 have been paragraphed and a bit detailed. The crux of the matter in both the suits is the same. From the facts narrated above, it is apparent that the facts in Suit No. 1188 of 1990 are the same 'as contained in Suit No. 1010 of 1989. Only the facts contained in suit No. 1010 of 1989 have been paragraphed and a bit detailed. The crux of the matter in both the suits is the same. The Society is the main beneficiary. In both the suits, the relief has been sought to restrain the Respondents from interfering in the peaceful possession of the Society over the land in dispute. 10. It has been argued by learned Counsel for the Appellant that the Society has spent lot of money over the constructions of orphange, Gaushala and other constructions standing over land in dispute. Since this possession of the society is for more than twelve, years, then on the basis of this possession alone the Plaintiffs were entitled to injunction. Our attention was drawn to the plaint of Suit No. 735 of 1989 which is Annexure 'A' to the affidavit accompanying the application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 and Section 151, CPC in F.A.F.O No. 1199 of 1990, Pradeep Kumar and 3 Ors. v. Satya Pal Singh and 2) Ors.. This suit was filed by Respondent Rajinder Nath against Swatantra Kumar, Ashok Kumar, Vijay Kumar and the Society, It was urged that in this plaint the Respondent Rajinder Nath had admitted that Prem Nath and Surendra Kumar co-sharers had sold their 1/6th share each to the Society It was urged that, in this view of the matter, the Society is not unconcerned with the property. It has ample interest in the property and this itself was sufficient to indicate that the Society had a prima facie case. It was also pointed out that in Suit No. 735 of 1989 the Plaintiff had obtained an injunction order against the Society. Hence it would be equitable to restrain Respondent Rajinder Nath and others also from changing the status of the land or making constructions over the land in dispute. 11. In support of his contention that even a co-sharer may be restrained by temporary injunction from making constructions, learned Counsel for the Appellant relied upon Gangubai Bablya Chaudhary and Others Vs. Sitaram Bhalchandra Sukhtankar and Others, AIR 1983 SC 742 . 11. In support of his contention that even a co-sharer may be restrained by temporary injunction from making constructions, learned Counsel for the Appellant relied upon Gangubai Bablya Chaudhary and Others Vs. Sitaram Bhalchandra Sukhtankar and Others, AIR 1983 SC 742 . In this case, it was held that injunction restraining the co-sharer from making constructions on entire land may be granted if the court feels that the situation may become irreverseable as the time of final decision, if the defendant is allowed to make constructions. 12. Our attention was also drawn to Chhedi Lal and Another Vs. Chhotey Lal, AIR 1951 All 199 . In this case, a Full Bench of this Court had held that the question of the right of co-sharers in respect of joint land should be kept separate and distinct from the question as to what relief should be granted to a co-sharer whose right in respect of joint land has been invaded by the other co-sharers by exclusively appropriating a land himself. It was held that each case will be decided upon its own peculiar facts and it will be left to the court to exercise its discretion upon proof of circumstances showing which; side the balance of convenience lies. Thus exercising its discretion the court will be guided by consideration of justice, equity or good conscience. It was also held that it was not possible for the court to lay down an inflexible rule as to the circumstances in which the relief for demolition and injunction should be granted or refused. 13. Learned Counsel for the Appellant urged that even though there is no documentary evidence to indicate dedication of the share of Respondent Rajindra Nath to the Society for its charitable purpose, but the way in which the Society had been dealing with the property is indicative of the fact that actually all the co-sharers had dedicated their property to the Society and as now the circumstances have changed when the prices of land have escalaved, Respondent Rajinder Nath is now somer saulting and denying his very act of dedication of the property. It was urged that keeping in view the above circumstances it is just and equitable to restrain Respondent Rajinder Nath from interfering in the possession of the Society over the land In dispute. 14. It was urged that keeping in view the above circumstances it is just and equitable to restrain Respondent Rajinder Nath from interfering in the possession of the Society over the land In dispute. 14. Learned Counsel for Respondent Rajinder Nath urged that Rajinder Nath has admittedly 1/6th share in the land in dispute. In these circumstances, Respondent Rajinder Nath cannot be restrained from exercising his right as a co-sharer over the property in dispute. Our attention was drawn to Raj Narain Pratap Narain Vs. U.P. State Electricity Board, AIR 1982 All 14 . In this case, the principles relating to grant of temporary injunction were enuntiated by this Court. 15. It is now a well settled principle that in order to get an injunction the Plaintiff will have to show that he has a prima facie case, the balance of convenience lies in his favour and he will suffer irreparable loss. It is also established by several pronouncement of various Courts that in suitable cases even a co-sharer may be restrained from making construction over joint property if he is doing so to the detriment of the interest of the other co-sharers. It is also established that while doing so the Courts will be guided by the principles of equity, good conscience and consideration of justice. 16. Learned Counsel for the Appellants was asked to indicate as to how the second suit was maintainable. Learned Counsel for the Appellants urged that this matter ought to be decided by the lower court and it would not be appropriate for this Court to express any opinion on the said matter. Learned Counsel for the Appellants urged that at least an injunction may be granted in the first case. The lower court ought to have examined the matter whether any construction of the Society existed or exists on the land in dispute. If the parties were treating the land in dispute as dedicated to the Society, then execution of any formal document conveying the property to the Society is not an essential factor. Actually, the existence of construction and the user by the Society of the land in dispute would indicate the intention of the co-sharers. It was urged that the two Civil Judges have not considered the case of the Plaintiff-Appellants from the above angle. 17. It is unfortune that the court below had not cared to consolidate Suit Nos. Actually, the existence of construction and the user by the Society of the land in dispute would indicate the intention of the co-sharers. It was urged that the two Civil Judges have not considered the case of the Plaintiff-Appellants from the above angle. 17. It is unfortune that the court below had not cared to consolidate Suit Nos. 735 of 1989, 1010 of 1989 and 1188 of 1990 when all the three suits are in respect of the same property and most of the parties are common. The Society is either a Plaintiff or defendant in all the above suits. A question will arise in this case whether during pendency of Suit No. 1010 of 1989 second Suit No. 1188 of 1990 was maintainable. In Suit No. 735 of 1989, Rajinder Nath had admitted in paragraph 2 of his plaint that Prem Nath and Surendra Kumar had sold out their 1/6th share in favour of defendant No. 4 (in Suit No. 735 of 1989) of Society. Rajinder Nath admits that the Society is a co-sharer in the property in dispute. From Annexure "A" to injunction application in F.A.F.O. No. 1199 of 1990, it transpiras that the suit was filed on 15-9-1989. It is, therefore, not open to Respondent Rajinder Nath to plead that the Society has no interest whatsoever in the property in dispute. The Vth Additiodal Civil Judge has noticed that Samadhi, Gaushala and tubewell etc. exists as reported by the commissioner. Thus, on a perusal of the pleadings of Respondent Rajinder Nath in his own suit, and the report of commissioner it is amply clear that the Society has prima facie some interest in the property in dispute. Hence, in the circumstances of the case, when Rajinder Nath is himself seeking perpetual injunction against the Society and three others and has also obtained a temporary injunction against the Society and others, it is expedient in the interest of justice and to safe-guard the interest of the Society, it would be appropriate to restrain Respondent Rajinder Nath and others from changing the status of the land in dispute, as it exists and making any construction over the land in dispute. 18. 18. It is not worthy that even though the Second Additional Civil Judge had noticed that the order passed by the Fifth Additional Civil Judge in Suit No. 1010 of 1989 will operate as res-judicata against the Appellants, yet he has not proceeded to decide whether Suit No. 1188 of 1990 was actually maintainable. However the two Civil Judges ought to have directed the Respondent to maintain status quo and refrain from making any construction over the land in dispute. In this case, the parties are indulging in multifarious litigations. Hence, in order to curb this tendency of litigations, multiplicity of suits and to avoid future litigations, we feel that suitable injunction should be issued against the Respondents. In the circumstance mentioned above, we feel that it would be appropriate in this case to restrain the Respondents in both the suits as indicated above. It transpires that the Society had been utilizing the property for charitable purposes like maintaining orphanage etc. Hence not only the interest of society the interest of the beneficiaries of the institutions are also involved. They would suffer irreparable loss if injunction is not granted. Hence balance of evidence obviously tilts in favour of the Society. In these circumstances, the proper direction would be to restrain the Respondents as stated above. 19. We, however, feel that this injunction should be granted only for a limited period allowing discretion to the lower court to extend it from time to time if the circumstances necessitate. However, the lower court should be directed to decide as to which of the two suits, namely. Suits No. 1010 of 1989 and 1188 of 1990 is maintainable. 20. In the result, both the appeals succeed and are allowed. The judgment and order in the case are set aside. The applications for injunction are allowed. The Respondents are restrained from changing the status of the land in dispute, as it exists to-day, from making construction over the land in dispute. This injunction shall remain operative during a period of six months from the date of this order. The lower court shall be competent to extend this period from time to time. 21. The Respondents are restrained from changing the status of the land in dispute, as it exists to-day, from making construction over the land in dispute. This injunction shall remain operative during a period of six months from the date of this order. The lower court shall be competent to extend this period from time to time. 21. The lower court shall, however, after receipt of certified copy of this order before taking further proceedings except issuing commission as directed below and preferably within two months, decide after hearing parties as to whether Suit No. 1188 of 1990 is maintainable in view of pendency of Suit No. 1010 of 1989. In case the lower court is of opinion that Suit No. 1188 of 1990 is not maintainable, it shall permit the Plaintiff of Suit No. 1010 of 1989 to make adequate amendments in the plaint. The lower court shall also issue a commission at the expense of the Society to make a local inspection of the site to assertain the present position and to report about the existence of the constructions over the land in dispute. The learned Commissioner shall also be directed to submit a site-plan on scale showing various constructions over the land in dispute and also the extent of the disputed land. The lower court may also make such direction to the Commissioner as it deems necessary in the circumstances of the case and also as prayed by either parties. After receipt of certified copy of this order, the lower court shall also consider about consolidation of Suit Nos. 735 of 1989, 1010 of 1989, 1188 of 1990 and such other suits which are pending between the parties in respect of this very property in dispute. 22. A certified copy of this order shall also be placed before the District Judge, Ghaziabad, who shall transfer Suit Nos. 1010 of 1989, 735 of 1989 and 1188 of 1990 and such other suits which are pending between the parties to one court. After receipt of the records, the court, to which cases are transferred, shall consider about consolidation after hearing the parties. Both the parties shall bear their own costs.