These two appeals arise from the decree and judgment passed by the court below in O.S.No.69/1980. A.S.No.199/1999 was filed by the plaintiffs challenging that part of the decree by which their prayer for recovery of plaint B and C schedule properties was disallowed. A.S.No.449/1999 was filed by defendants 2 to 10 and 12 to 16 challenging a finding of the Land Tribunal that they are not entitled to get fixity of tenure over 69 cents of land which is part of B schedule. For the sake of convenience the parties will be referred to as arrayed in the court below.

2. Plaintiffs filed the suit for a declaration that B and C schedule properties and the temples situated in B schedule are in the ownership and possession of first plaintiff and defendants 2 to 10 have no manner of right, title, interest or possession over B and C schedule properties and also for directing defendants 1 to 10 and 12 to 17 not to disturb the peaceful possession of plaintiffs over B and C schedule properties and in the alternative for recovery of possession of B and C schedule properties and temples from defendants 2 to 10 with mesne profits.

3. The following are the material averments in the plaint. Plaint A, B and C schedule properties originally belonged to Kochiparambil Family, an Ezhava Family following Marumakkathayam law and governed by Travancore Ezhava Act. Plaint A schedule was given to Poothotta Ezhava Samajam by the Kochiparambil Family. Ownership and possession of A schedule property vested in the said Samajam. Subsequently the right, title and interest of the Samajam devolved upon the first plaintiff SNDP Branch at Poothotta. In plaint A schedule there is a Shiva temple in which deity was installed by Sree Narayana Guru Swami in 1068 M.E.. A high school and office buildings owned by the first plaintiff are also situated in that property. The Government Primary School is functioning in a building put up by the Government with the permission of first plaintiff. Though the area of A schedule is stated as 2 acres 97 cents in the revenue records the actual extent is 2 acres 30 cents. It is owned and possessed by the first plaintiff and no one have any manner of title, right or possession over it. On 11.1098 a partition was effected by the Kochiparambil Family as per document No.4027/1098. The Family was divided into eight branches. I schedule in the partition deed was kept as a common property. A reading of the description would give an impression that plaint A schedule was also included in that schedule but long prior to that date A schedule property was given to the first plaintiffs predecessor-in-interest. The property included in I schedule was plaint B and C schedules. It was provided that the income from B and C schedule should be utilised for the maintenance of the common ancestress Cheerapennu and for the annual thatching of common building. It was also provided that income derived from the temple situated in B schedule shall be utilised to meet the expenses of ceremonies and day today affairs of that temple. It was further provided that after Cheerappennus death the eldest male member of the family should keep possession of the property and utilise the income from B and C schedule properties for the conduct of the ceremonies of the temple. He should maintain proper accounts and the same should be scrutinised and approved by the seniormost members of the thavazhies. Rest of the income should be utilized for common purposes. It was also provided that if any documents were to be executed the same should be executed by all executents of the partition deed together. B and C schedule properties were in the possession of the eldest male member of the family who was taking income from the properties and the temple and utilising the same for temple and other purposes as per the partition deed. In the year 1124 Shri K.C.Kunjan Panicker was the eldest member of the family. He was managing B and C schedule properties. At that time Shri Chennan