These four appeals are arising out of a common orders passed on issues 7 to 9 and on maintainability of the suit. The appellants in these appeals were plaintiffs in O.S. Nos. 2045 to 2048 of 1997. Since the averments in the plaints in the four suits and the contentions in the written statements are similar, these appeals are heard together by consent of the learned Counsel appearing for both the parties.

2. Four suits were filed by the plaintiffs against different defendants and out of them defendants 1, 3, 4 and 5 are common in all suits and only the defendant 2 in the suits are different. They are, Doraiswamy Naidu in O.S. No. 2045 of 1997, T.N. Venkatesh in O.S. No. 2046 of 1997, E. Govinda Naidu in O.S. No. 2047 of 1997 and T. Krishnama Naidu in O.S. No. 2048 of 1997.

3. Four suits were filed by the plaintiff for the following reliefs:

To cancel the sale deed dated 13-9-1993 executed by the 1st defendant in favour of the 2nd defendant in all the suits and to cancel the sale deed dated 15-9-1994 executed by the 2nd defendant in favour of defendants 3 to 5 and to direct the defendants 1 to 5 to vacate and put the plaintiffs in possession of plaint Schedule B property and to award future mesne profits at the rate of Rs. 50,000/- per month from the date of suit till the date of realisation.

4. The subject-matter of the suits is in regard to old Sy. No.4, Resurvey No. 4/2 of Jaraabande Kaval, Yelahanka Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, measuring 4 acres 14 guntas and 44 sq. yards corresponding to present BDA site Nos. 22/1, 22/2, 22/3 and 22/4.

5. The defendants contested the suit. In the written statement it was contended that the suits filed by the plaintiffs were not maintainable as the same are bad for misjoinder and non-joinder of necessary parties and that the suits filed by the plaintiffs is barred by limitation, since the suits are filed by the plaintiffs beyond the period of 3 years from the - date of transactions and the Court fee paid by the plaintiffs is insufficient and that the suits filed by the plaintiffs are not maintainable as the plaintiffs have no right title or interest over the property. In addition to the above four grounds, they also raised several grounds in their written statement.

6. To dispose of these appeals, this Court is of the opinion that there is no necessity to refer to the entire plaint averments and the averments made in the written statements, as these appeals can be disposed of on a simple question.

7. The Trial Court considering the pleadings of the parties framed the following issues in all the suits:

1. Whether late D. Omprakash (the father of plaintiffs 2 to 6 and husband of 1st plaintiff) was the owner of the entire 'A' schedule property?

2. Whether the plaintiffs prove that the General Power of Attorney executed by them in favour of 1st defendant was not a legally valid document?

3. Whether they had the right to revoke/cancel the General Power of Attorney?

4. Whether the G.P.A. had been duly cancelled even prior to the execution of sale deed by 1st defendant in favour of 2nd defendant?

5. Whether the plaintiffs prove that they are not bound by the sale by 1st defendant in favour of the 2nd defendant and the sale by the 2nd defendant in favour of defendants 3 to 5 in respect of "B" Schedule property?

6. Whether defendants 3 to 5 prove to be the bona fide purchasers of B schedule property from the 2nd defendant for valuable consideration and have further perfected their title by virtue of the sale deed executed by the BDA?

7. Whether the suit is barred by limitation?

8. Whether the valuation of the "B" Schedule property for the reliefs sought and the Court fee paid are not sufficient?

9. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties?

10. Whether the sale deed dated 13-9-1993 by 1st defendant in favour of 2nd defendant and dated 15-9-1994 by the 2nd defendant in favour of defendants 3 to 5 are null and void?

11. Are the plaintiffs entitled to possession of "B" Schedule property and m