1. The plaintiffs are the appellants. The suit is for removal of defendants 1 to 4 form the office of trusteeship of a private family trust, for a scheme for the management of the trust and for other incidental reliefs. The plaintiffs and defendants belong to a family called Chathan Iravi Oollittar in Rajackamangalam. The family has a religious endowment for which the plaint properties have been dedicated. The suit was filed in a representative capacity, notice having been issued under Order 1, Rule 8 of Code of Civil Procedure, there being many members in the family who are not made parties to the suit. For the administration of the trust an Udampadi, Ext. A, was executed by the members of the family on 21-4-1109. According to that Udampadi the members of the family should assemble the day after the Mandakkat Fair in a building called Pandarakkulam Matom and lots should be taken for the election of one trustee and the trustee so elected should nominate another member of the family as his co-trustee and they together should manage the trust for a term of two years. They have to keep regular accounts and submit the same to the members of the family in a meeting to be called for the purpose within a weak after the Panguni Uthram. According to the plaintiffs, defendants 1 and 2 were the trustees on the date of suit. It is alleged that they were not discharging their duties properly and that they have misappropriated the income from the trust properties. The term of defendants 1 and 2 expired on 1-8-1120. It is further alleged that they induced defendants 6 and 7 to file a suit as O.S. No. 634 of 1120 of the Nagercoil Munsiff's Court and to obtain an injunction restraining them from holding the election for the appointment of new trustees. It is also alleged that defendants 3 and 4 pretended to be elected as trustees in the place of defendants 1 and 2. According to the plaintiffs, defendants 3 and 4 have not been elected trustees and the election, if any, is invalid. They, therefore, sued for the removal of defendants 1 to 4 from trusteeship, for a settlement of accounts relating to the trust and for a scheme for the management of the trust.

2. Defendants 1 to 5 filed written statements in the case. Defendants 1 and 2 denied the acts of maladministration attributed to them. They also contended that no election took place on 1-8-1120, on account of the order of injunction issued from the Munsiff's Court. They stated that they had no objection to a scheme being settled for the management of the trust. After filing the written statement they did nothing further in the suit. Defendants 3 and 4 contended that they were elected trustees at the meeting of the members of the family held on 1-8-1120 and that they were managing the trust from that date. They also contended that defendants I and 2 had misappropriated trust funds, that their accounts should be settled and that they (Defendants 3 and 4) should be allowed to recover from defendants 1 and 9 the amounts that would be found due from them. It was also contended that the injunction order issued in the suit in the Munsiff's Court would not bind the members of the family who were not parties to that suit. They further contended that no scheme for the future management of the trust was necessary and that if the members of the family thought it necessary to modify any of the terms of the Udampadi, Ex. A, it could be done in a general meeting of the members as provided in Ext. A The 5th defendant supported defendants 3 and 4. The plaintiffs filed a replication traversing the allegations in the written statements.

3. Issue 1 raised in the case related to the question whether defendants 1 and 2 still continued as trustees and whether defendants 3 and 4 were validly elected trustees. The court below found that defendants 3 and 4 were elected trustees on 1-8-1120 and that defendants 1 and 2 ceased to function as trustees from that date. Since the term of office of defendants 3 and