JUDGMENT : K.T. Sankaran, J. SA No. 845 of 1997 arises out of OS No. 188 of 1992 on the file of the Munsiff's Court Paravoor. The suit was originally filed as OS No. 434 of 1989 on the file of the Munsiff's Court, Kollam which was transferred to the Munsiff’s Court, Paravoor where it was re-numbered. OS No. 188 of 1992 was filed by Devaswom, Vilayil Kunnathu Temple and its President and Secretary against Devaki and Damodaran for recovery of possession of the plaint B and C scheduled buildings and for permanent injunction restraining them from entering into A scheduled property after recovery of possession. The plaint A schedule property is having an extent of one acre and 28 cents. The temple and its appurtenances are situated in that property. Plaint Band C schedules are two buildings situated in the A schedule property. The Trial Court dismissed the suit as per the judgment and decree dated 27/2/1993. On appeal by the defendants AS No. 152 of 1994 on the file of the Court of the District Judge, Kollam, the appeal was dismissed and the judgment and decree of the Trial Court were confirmed. SA No. 845 of 1997 is filed by the plaintiffs challenging the concurrent decisions of the Courts below. 2. OS No. 384 of 1991 on the file of the Munsiff’s Court, Paravoor was filed by Vilayil Kunnathu Durga Devi Temple and the President and Secretary of the Devaswam. The defendants in the suit are the Director of Survey and Land Records, the Assistant Director of Survey and Land Records, the District Collector, the Tahsildar, the Government, Devaki and Saraswathi. The sixth defendant-Devaki is the first defendant in OS No. 188 of 1992. The seventh defendant-Saraswathi is the daughter of the sixth defendant-Devaki. OS No. 384 of 1991 was originally filed as OS No. 206 of 1990 on the file of the Munsiff’s Court, Kollam, which was transferred to the Munsiff’s Court, Paravoor where it was re-numbered as OS No. 384 of 1991. The seventh defendant-Saraswathi is the daughter of the sixth defendant-Devaki. OS No. 384 of 1991 was originally filed as OS No. 206 of 1990 on the file of the Munsiff’s Court, Kollam, which was transferred to the Munsiff’s Court, Paravoor where it was re-numbered as OS No. 384 of 1991. OS No. 384 of 1991 was filed for setting aside the Resurvey Sub Division in respect of the disputed item and for a declaration of the title and possession of the Devaswam in the Resurvey Sub Division having an extent of 19.55 Ares shown in the B schedule which form part of the total extent of one acre 28 cents shown in the plaint A schedule. There is also a prayer for mandatory injunction directing defendants 1 to 5 to include the disputed resurvey plot (B schedule) in the name of the Devaswam. The Trial Court dismissed the suit. On appeal by the plaintiffs as AS No. 235 of 1996 on the file of the Court of the District Judge, Kollam, the Appellate Court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment and decree of the Trial Court and decreed the suit. SA No. 52 of 2002 is filed by defendants 6 and 7 in the suit. 3. Hereinafter, the Devaswam and office bearers of the Devaswam are referred to as the plaintiffs and Devaki, Damodaran and Saraswathi are referred to as the contesting defendants. 4. According to the plaintiffs, an extent of one acre and 28 cents of land in Survey No. 1309 of Paravoor-Kottappuram Village was dealt with under Ext. A1 Udampadi (in the certified copy marked as Ext. A1, it is mentioned as Anubhogam Udampadi. The learned counsel appearing for the contesting defendants submitted that it is a mistake and it is really Anubhava Udampadi. It would appear that there is no evidence on that aspect of the matter). As per Ext. A1 dated 17th Thulam 1073 M.E, Anandan Kunchiyan, Villi Velayudhan and Velayudhan Raman, who belonged to the two branches of the same joint family made certain stipulations as to how the property should be dealt with by the members and how the affairs of the temple belonging to the family should be protected, preserved and administered. According to the plaintiffs, Ext. A1 would confer title on the Devaswam whereas according to the defendants, the two branches of the joint temple and its assets. According to the plaintiffs, Ext. A1 would confer title on the Devaswam whereas according to the defendants, the two branches of the joint temple and its assets. The plaintiffs have filed a copy of the judgment dated 19/12/2002 in OS No. 329 of 1989, a copy of the draft scheme submitted in that suit and also a copy of the order dated 30/10/2004 in the final decree proceedings in the scheme suit, as additional documents. It is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiffs that OS No. 329 of 1989 has attained finality and therefore, the contention of the contesting defendants is barred by res judicata. Sri. K. Subash Chandra Bose, the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiffs submitted that going by the order dated 30/10/2004 passed in the scheme suit, it is clear that the entire extent of one acre 28 cents belongs to the temple and that no member of the family would have any right to claim independent rights in the property. In case they do so, the Devaswam would have right to evict them. The learned senior counsel Sri. N. Dharmadan and Sri. B. Raghunathan appearing for the contesting defendants submitted that the additional documents are not liable to be accepted and that it is not family got separated by the terms of the document and they have no rights in common. In other words, according to the defendants, Devaswam has no title to the disputed property in which the contesting defendants are residing with families after constructing houses. In Ext. A1 there are stipulations for construction of houses by the members and for maintaining the temple. 5. In 1988, Bhoodhana Udampadi (Ext. A2 in OS No. 384 of 1991 and Ext. A4 in OS No. 188 of 1992) was executed by some of the members of the family for administration of the temple and property. The contesting defendants contended that they are not parties to the 1988 document and that it is not binding on them. 5. In 1988, Bhoodhana Udampadi (Ext. A2 in OS No. 384 of 1991 and Ext. A4 in OS No. 188 of 1992) was executed by some of the members of the family for administration of the temple and property. The contesting defendants contended that they are not parties to the 1988 document and that it is not binding on them. They filed OS No. 329 of 1989 before the Sub Court, Kollam for a declaration that the plaintiffs and defendants are the members Vilayil Kunnathu family entitled to participate in the affairs of temple and its assets and for settlement of a scheme for the administration of the submitted that there are conflicting findings in OS No. 188 of 1992 and OS No. 384 of 1991 and in the appeals therefrom, in OS No. 188 of 1992, it was found that the plaintiffs have not established exclusive title to the property whereas the finding in OS No. 384 of 1991 is that the plaintiffs have title to the property. 6. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties in great detail and also perused the pleadings and documentary and oral evidence in the cases. If the Second Appeal are disposed of taking the parameters of Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, both parties would be put to irreparable injury. The parties may be governed by the proceedings in scheme suit and the proceedings therein. If the conflicting findings in the judgments in the suits are allowed to stand, it would create great difficulties to both the parties and there would be no end to litigation. The contesting defendants are residing in the houses situated in: portion of the property and one house very clear as to whether the entire extent of one acre cents is included in OS No. 329 of 1989 though in the order dated 30/10/2004 approving draft scheme submitted by the defendants therein, there is a mention of one acre 28 cents is pointed out that the judgment dated 19/12/2002 in OS No. 329 of 1989 would indicated the extent of the property is 30 cents. The judgment also indicates that the contention oft defendants therein (plaintiffs in the present cases) was that the description of the property having an extent of only 30 cents was mischievous. The judgment also indicates that the contention oft defendants therein (plaintiffs in the present cases) was that the description of the property having an extent of only 30 cents was mischievous. The learned senior counsel submitted the judgment and order in the scheme suit cannot be taken as conclusive for determining rights of the parties and the title set up by the contesting defendants and their case of den: of title of the plaintiffs. The learned senior counsel submitted that it was concurrently fount OS No. 188 of 1992 that the plaintiffs have no title to the property and there is no material: come to a different finding in these Second Appeals. Sri. K. Subash Chandra Bose, on the other hand, was constructed more than 15 years ago and another house was construed more than 20 years ago. It is also submitted by the learned senior counsel Sri. N. Dharmadan and Sri. B. Raghunathan that if SA No. 52 of 2002 is dismissed, in spite of the dismissal of SA No. 845 of 1997, the contesting defendants would be put to untold misery and hardships. Similar submission was made by Sri. Subash Chandra Bose also. He submitted that even if SA No. 52 of 2002 is dismissed and if SA No. 845 of 1997 is also dismissed, the Devaswam would be put to untold hardship and inconvenience and it may even affect the proceeding in the scheme suit. 7. Taking into account ail the facts and circumstances of the case and taking into account the conflicting findings in the two suits and also taking into account the subsequent events which took place, namely, the filing of the suit for framing a scheme and the decree and subsequent order in the final decree proceedings therein, I am of the view that quietus to the dispute between the parties could be achieved only if both the suits are directed to be considered afresh by conducting joint trial of both the suits, namely, OS No. 188 of 1992 and OS No. 384 of 1991. It would also be necessary to permit both parties to adduce evidence and to produce such other additional documents which they desire to produce. It is also just and necessary to maintain status quo as on the date of the suits till the disposal of both the suits. It would also be necessary to permit both parties to adduce evidence and to produce such other additional documents which they desire to produce. It is also just and necessary to maintain status quo as on the date of the suits till the disposal of both the suits. It is also necessary to ensure that both the parties do not commit any waste in the entire extent of one acre 28 cents. At the same time, it is necessary to maintain the interim order dated 16/8/2006 in IA No. 1566 of 2006 in SA No. 845 of 1997 by which the Devaswam was permitted to carry on the construction activities of the temple and the contesting defendants were injuncted from obstructing the construction activities. That interim order also protects the rights of the defendants by making it clear that the rights of the contesting defendants over plaint B and C schedule properties shall not be interfered with by the plaintiffs. 8. On an anxious consideration of all the materials on record and all the contentions put forward by the parties, I am of the considered opinion that OS No. 188 of 1992 and OS No. 384 of 1991 should have been tried jointly. However, it would appear that joint trial was not ordered as either party did not apply for an order for joint trial. This resulted in the conflicting findings. If a final decision is to be taken on the merits, it is also necessary to decide the contention of res judicata raised by the plaintiffs based on the judgment and subsequent order in OS No. 329 of 1989 on the file of the Sub Court, Kollam. In the light of the aforesaid contentions raised by the contesting defendants with respect to the judgment and order in the scheme suit, I am of the view that it is not safe to arrive at a conclusive finding on that aspect of the matter without allowing the parties to adduce evidence. It has come out in evidence that the family consists of more than four thousand members. There were other litigations also between the members of the family for partition. Any decision rendered in these suits would have impact on the rights of the members of the family. It has come out in evidence that the family consists of more than four thousand members. There were other litigations also between the members of the family for partition. Any decision rendered in these suits would have impact on the rights of the members of the family. In the scheme suit, there were several other parties, who are the members of the family and those persons are not parties in OS Nos. 188 of 1992 an 384 of 1991. If a final and conclusive decision is taken in these suits at the second appellate stage, particularly when the decision in the scheme suit was rendered, it would affect the other members of the family also. It is relevant to note here that some of the appellants in SA No. 845 of 1997 have filed IA No. 591 of 2008 to permit them to amend the plaint in OS No. 188 of 1992 to incorporate a contention that by the Udampadi 1073 M. E. a private religious trust has come into existence. It is pointed out that the judgment in OS No. 329 of 1989, and the order therein would fortify the contention of the plaintiffs that there exists a private religious trust. At this stage, it is not proper to entertain the application for amendment of the plaint, in the Second Appeals. In view of the necessity to remand the cases to the Trial Court, I am of the view that any of the parties would be free to amend their pleadings so that a complete adjudication of the disputes between the parties could be made. 9. For the aforesaid reasons, the Second Appeals are allowed, the judgment and decree of the Courts below are set aside and the suits are remanded to the Trial Court for fresh disposal. The Trial Court shall jointly try and dispose of OS Nos. 188 of 1992 and 384 of 1991. The parties would be free to amend their pleadings and to adduce further documentary and oral evidence in the cases. IA No. 498 of 2008 in SA No. 845 of 1997 filed by the appellants for producing additional documents and the additional documents shall be forwarded to the Trial Court along with the records. 10. The parties would be free to amend their pleadings and to adduce further documentary and oral evidence in the cases. IA No. 498 of 2008 in SA No. 845 of 1997 filed by the appellants for producing additional documents and the additional documents shall be forwarded to the Trial Court along with the records. 10. The interim order dated 16/8/2006 passed by this Court in IA No. 1566 of 2006 in SA No. 845 of 1997 shall remain in force till the disposal of the suits. Both parties shall not commit any acts of waste in the disputed property having an extent of 1.28 acres. If any interim order is required for protection and preservation of the property and the buildings, both parties would be free to approach the Trial Court for the grant of the necessary orders. Second Appeals are allowed as above. 11. The learned counsel appearing for all the parties are of the uniform view that it would be ideal if the parties settle all their disputes and differences. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the Trial Court shall make every endeavour to see whether at amicable settlement would be possible between the parties and if necessary, the Trial Court; can refer the parties to the Adalath.