(1) IN these appeals the appellants are calling in question the correctness of the order made by the High Court in a second appeal. Respondent No. 1 - Lakshmanan brought a suit stating that he had the right of redemption in respect of certain property. The defendant also filed another suit to which the plaintiff was impleaded as defendant. Both suits were tried together. Ultimately the trial court took the view that the respondent No. 1 had not established that he is the son of Kesavan and therefore, he had no right to claim redemption. That view of the trial court was upheld in appeal by the District Court. In the second appeal, the High Court relied on two documents, the Exhibit A-9 and Exhibit A- 10. Ex. A-9 was a chitty bond executed by Lakshmi Pankajakshy, Kesavan Ramakrishnan and Kesavan Lakshmanan on 27/8/1128. Pankajakshy was referred to as belonging to Cheriya Pattur House. On that basis the High Court came to the conclusion that the interconnection between the parites were established and Ramakrishnan and Lakshmanan are sons of Kesavan and when they are connected with Pankajakshy, daughter of Lakshmi and all of them are of the same place of Pathirikari Muri. Cheri