JUDGMENT : R. MAHADEVAN, J. 1. This appeal is filed against the judgment and decree dated 15.12.2015 made in A.S.No.16 of 2014 on the file of the II Additional District and Sessions Court, Thanjavur, Thanjavur District reversing the judgment and decree dated 29.11.2013 made in O.S.No.114 of 2012 on the file of the Additional Sub Court, Kumbakonam, Thanjavur District. 2. The facts arising out of this case, are as under:- The appellants herein are the plaintiffs and the respondents herein are the defendants in the suit filed in O.S.No.114 of 2012 on the file of the Additional Subordinate Court, Kumbakonam. The plaintiffs have filed the suit stating that they have inherited the suit properties from their ancestors and are in continuous possession and enjoyment of the same. It is further stated that the plaintiffs were enjoying the suit properties by cultivating crops periodically and they presented 5 kalams of paddy till 1988 and subsequently 7 kalams of paddy towards Dharmam for Muthu Pandal Brahamana Samarthanai, to the first defendant. While so, the Government has permitted the land owners to convert the nanja lands to residential house sites through G.O.(Ms)No.184, Housing and Urban Development (UD4-2), dated 24.05.2005. They also got approval from the District Collector concerned. At this juncture, the first defendant came forward with a claim that the first defendant-temple have got undivided 1/30th share in the suit properties and that the first respondent temple is also in joint possession of the suit properties along with the plaintiffs. The first defendant filed a suit in O.S.No.219 of 2005 on the file of the I Additional District Munsif, Kumbakonam, for the relief of permanent injunction restraining the plaintiffs from converting the suit land into house plots. The plaintiffs also filed detailed written statement. After trial, the suit was decreed against the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs filed an appeal in A.S.No.71 of 2010 before the Principal Sub Court, Kumbakonam, and it was also dismissed. Thereafter, the plaintiffs preferred an appeal before this Court in S.A.(MD)No.980 of 2011 in which interim injunction was ordered on 30.09.2011, and it is pending. Even though the plaintiffs denied the temple's right with regard to the share in the properties, they have decided to partition the suit property, by which the plaintiffs will get 29/30th share and the first defendant temple will get 1/30th share, without prejudice to their rights. Even though the plaintiffs denied the temple's right with regard to the share in the properties, they have decided to partition the suit property, by which the plaintiffs will get 29/30th share and the first defendant temple will get 1/30th share, without prejudice to their rights. Since the notice sent to the first defendant stating the above willingness, was denied by the first defendant, aggrieved by the same, the plaintiffs have filed the suit in O.S.No.114 of 2012. Written statement was filed on the side of the defendants. 3. After considering the materials placed on record, the Trial Court decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiffs. 4. Aggrieved by the same, the first defendant filed the appeal in A.S.No.16 of 2014 on the file of the II Additional District and Sessions Court, Thanjavur. 5. The Lower Appellate Court set aside the judgment and decree of the Trial Court and remanded the matter to the Trial Court for fresh disposal permitting the plaintiffs to implead necessary parties and to adjudicate the claim of the plaintiffs and defendants in the presence of purchasers and another share holder, within a period of six months. 6. Aggrieved over the judgment and decree of the Lower Appellate Court, the present appeal is filed by the plaintiffs, raising the following substantial questions of law:- “a. Whether the Court below partitioned the suit property is correct when the Court below came to the conclusion that the suit properties are absolute properties of the plaintiffs? b. Whether the defendant proved that they were co-owner of plaintiffs for claiming share of 1/30 from the suit property? c. Whether the trial appellate Court is followed procedure in CPC Order 1 Rule 9 of CPC? d. Whether the trial appellate Court is followed the procedure in CPC Order 41, Rule 24 and 25 CPC? e. Whether the Court below passed the decree for partition the suit property is correct when in the suit property has been divided as so many plots and sold the so many persons and got layout permission as per G.O.M.S.No.184, Housing and Urban Development (UD 4.2) dated 24.05.2005?” 7. When this appeal was taken up on 04.03.2016, Mr.VR.Shanmuganathan, learned Special Government Pleader, took notice for the respondents and sought time to get instructions till today and accordingly, the appeal is posted today for hearing. 8. When this appeal was taken up on 04.03.2016, Mr.VR.Shanmuganathan, learned Special Government Pleader, took notice for the respondents and sought time to get instructions till today and accordingly, the appeal is posted today for hearing. 8. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the Lower Appellate Court has failed to note that the suit properties are the appellants' ancestral properties and the temple cannot claim 1/30th share in it. He further submitted that the Lower Appellate Court has failed to note that the temple has not proved as to how it is the co-owner of the properties of the plaintiffs, for which no evidence has been produced by the temple before the Trial Court. The further contention put forth by the learned counsel for the appellants is that plaintiffs have got the layout approval with regard to the suit properties and only after getting approval, they sold the entire punjai lands and therefore, the plaintiffs are not having any properties to portion with the first defendant. 9. The learned counsel for the first respondent as well as the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the second respondent have denied the claim put forth by the learned counsel for the appellants / plaintiffs. 10. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available in the typed set of papers. 11. The Trial Court, on examination of the documents and witnesses, particularly relying upon the cross examination of P.W.1, the first plaintiff, held that the first defendant temple has clearly admitted that the plaintiffs have got 29/30th share in the suit properties. The Trial Court also observed that the plaintiffs' side offered the temple, a separate property, situate in Cholan Maligai in R.S.No.140/1 measuring 1 acre 40 cents, and that the first defendant temple has got right of share only for 86 cents in the suit property and the same was also admitted. But however, the plaintiffs and the first defendant have agreed that the plaintiffs have to part away the property measuring 1 acre 40 cents situated in R.S. No. 140/1 for the 1/30th share of the temple. Therefore, the Trial Court held that it is for the parties to work out their remedy in the final decree proceedings. But however, the plaintiffs and the first defendant have agreed that the plaintiffs have to part away the property measuring 1 acre 40 cents situated in R.S. No. 140/1 for the 1/30th share of the temple. Therefore, the Trial Court held that it is for the parties to work out their remedy in the final decree proceedings. Further, in view of the discussions and findings, the Trial Court held that the plaintiffs are entitled to 29/30th share in the suit properties and they are entitled for separate possession of the same. 12. But, when it was went on appeal, the Lower Appellate Court, relied upon the legal plea raised by the first defendant as to the non-impleading of necessary parties and that the defendants wanted to get a binding adjudication in the presence of purchasers and share holders, held that without impleading necessary parties, there is a chance for further litigation through the purchasers as well as the non-impleaded share holders. Holding so, the Lower Appellate Court remanded the matter to the Trial Court for proper adjudication. 13. It is seen that the matter went up to filing a second appeal before this Court in S.A.(MD)No.980 of 2011 and only thereafter, the present suit in O.S.No. 114 of 2012 was filed, which went on appeal before the Lower Appellate Court and the same has resulted in the filing of the present second appeal. Hence this is a second round of litigation. Taking into consideration the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, and also the facts and circumstances of the case, it would be fit and proper to remand the matter to the Trial Court for proper adjudication, by considering the matter afresh, by letting in any further evidence and impleading necessary parties so as to decide the actual title of the appellants as well as the temple. Only this will bring quietus to the issue. Hence, the judgments and decree passed by the Courts below are liable to be set aside. 14. Accordingly, the judgment and decree dated 15.12.2015 made in A.S.No.16 of 2014 on the file of the II Additional District and Sessions Court, Thanjavur, Thanjavur District as well as the judgment and decree dated 29.11.2013 made in O.S.No.114 of 2012 on the file of the Additional Sub Court, Kumbakonam, Thanjavur District, are set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Trial Court. Both the parties are permitted to let in any further evidence that would be necessary for deciding the title, before the Trial Court, and also implead necessary parties which may be essential for proceeding with the case. The Trial Court is directed to consider the matter afresh, based on the above observations, and dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible. 15. The Second Appeal is disposed of accordingly. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.