is true that in the plaint or in Ext.A1 it is not stated how appellant's father, Ulahannan derived title over the suit property but there is a reference in Ext.B1, sale deed executed by Thomas in favour of mother of appellant and respondent No.1 on 27.5.1955 that the property referred therein was outstanding on oral lease with Ulahannan, father of appellant and respondent No.1. Appellant has an argument that it would appear from the documents produced by the respondents that what was acquired by the mother was only jenm right over the property while the property stood with Ulahannan as per the (alleged) oral lease referred to in Ext.B1. It is contended that this aspect of the matter was not considered by the courts below and instead, Ext.A1 was ignored for the reason that it does not mention deliveration of title or the alleged oral lease. In O.S.No.12 of 2002 filed by respondent No.1 and others there is also a prayer for cancellation of Ext.A1. Considering the fact that O.S.No.120 of 2002 wherein cancellation of Ext.A1 and partition of the suit property are sought for is pending and in the nature of the respective recitals in the documents relied on by the parties, the controversy can be settled finally only if both suits are tried and disposed of jointly. Otherwise there is possibility of divergent decisions being entered into. The court has also to decide, even if Ext.B1 and the documents relied on by the respondents are accepted, what exactly is the right that the parties have acquired as per the respective documents and what would be the consequences on the claim of possession made by the contesting parties. In these circumstances notwithstanding that failure to conduct joint trial of the suit
