1. The legal representatives of the sole plaintiff, who has instituted two separate suits before the trial court, have come up with these appeals.

2. One Ayidru, of whom appellants are the legal representatives, filed two suits as O.S Nos.378 of 1987 and 379 of 1987 before the Sub Court, Irinjalakkuda. O.S No.378 of 1987 was for declaration that Sale Deed No.1619/1977 is only a mortgage deed, as the parties intended to execute only a mortgage deed as security for the loan advanced and for permitting the plaintiff to pay back Rs.4,400/- and to get back the properties from respondents 1 and 2.

3. The plaintiff alleged that in order to protect his properties having an extent of 61 cents in Sy. Nos.867/3 & 367/2 from sale in court auction by Dharmodayam Company, Trichur, in a suit filed by them as O.S No.45 of 1973, which was decreed in favour of the company, respondents 1 and 2 agreed to help late Ayidru. However, they wanted security for the loan to be advanced by them. The document was written as sale deed in favour of respondents 1 and 2. However, there was a simultaneous oral agreement between the parties that the buyers would re-convey the property on payment of Rs.4,400/- with interest. When the said money with interest was offered, the buyers refused to execute reconveyance deed. Thus, the suit.

4. In O.S No.379 of 1987, the plaintiff and defendants 3 and 4 are the same as in O.S No.378 of 1987. Defendants 1 and 2 are one Saidu and one Muhammed respectively. Except the suit property, defendants 1 and 2 and the documents sought to be set aside, other pleadings and statement of facts in O.S No.379 of 1987 are similar to that of the pleadings in O.S No.378 of 1987. In O.S No.379 of 1987, there is a prayer for declaration that document no.1618/1977 permitted to create only a mortgage transaction and the plaintiff is entitled to redeem the property. As per plaint averments, the suit properties in both the suits are lying adjacent contiguously.

5. The defendants resisted the suits contending that the documents were sale deeds and they cannot return the properties. They further contended that entire one acre and one cent of property came into the ownership of defendants 3 and 4 as per Exts.B5 to B8. They also contended that there was no agreement to return the property when the money was paid back. According to them, possession was given to them on the dates of documents and the story that forceful eviction set up by the plaintiff was also not true. They also contended that the suits are barred by limitation and the plaintiff is not entitled to the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act.

6. Defendants 3 and 4 through separate written statements contended that they are subsequent bona fide purchasers. They adopted the contentions of the defendants 1 and 2. They also contended that the plaintiff cannot be permitted to ignore Sections 91 and 92 of the Evidence Act and Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act.

7. The trial court after raising proper issues ordered joint trial of both the suits treating O.S No.378 of 1987 as the leading case. At the trial, PWs.1 to 5 as well as DWs.1 to 3 were examined and Exts.A1 to A14 and B1 to B8 were marked. During the pendency of trial, the second defendant in O.S No.378 of 1987 died and his legal heirs were impleaded as defendants 5 to 8. The trial court after considering the evidence, dismissed the suits. The matters were taken in appeal before the lower Appellate Court which after reconsideration of the evidence dismissed the appeals confirming the judgment and decree of the trial court.

8. The appellants took the matter before this Court in S.A Nos.631 of 2002 and 629 of 2002. S.A No.629 of 2002 was against the judgment in A.S No.272 of 1997 which in turn was against the judgment in O.S No.378 of 1987. S.A No.631 of 2002 was against A.S No.273 of 1997 which in turn was against the judgment in O.S No.379 of 1987. S.A No.629 of 2002 was disposed of setting aside the judgment in A.S