Thomas P. Joseph, J.

1. These second appeals arise from the common judgment and decree of learned first Additional District Judge, Ernakulam in A.S.Nos.210 and 217 of2007 arising from the judgment and decree of learned Second Additional Sub Judge, Ernakulam in O.S.Nos.561 of 1999 and 185 of 2002. For the sake of convenience parties are referred as plaintiffs and defendants as in O.S.No.561 of 1999.

2. Appellants/plaintiffs filed O.S.No.561 of 1999 for a declaration that Exts.X1 toX3, assignment deeds are null and void and for a mandatory injunction to direct defendants 3 and 4 to vacate from the ground floor of the building in question. The suit property in O.S.No.561 of 1999 is 8.190 cents and building situated thereon. According to the plaintiffs, at a time when they were engaged in construction of the building they fell short of money and approached defendants 1 and 2 for a loan. Defendants 1 and 2 agreed to lend Rs. 5,00,000/-. It was agreed that plaintiffs will execute mortgage deeds in favour of defendants 1 and 2. Accordingly, defendants 1 and 2, made available loan but, less Rs. 1,10,000/- which defendants 1 and 2 appropriated as advance interest etc. Pursuant to the agreement with defendants 1 and 2, plaintiffs 1 and 2 executed Exts.X2 and X3, document Nos. 1953 and 1954 of 1998 on 08.06.1998 in favour of defendants 1 and2 under the impression that the said documents are mortgage deeds. Later, there was some difference of opinion with defendants 1 and 2 when the latter threatened plaintiffs that based on the 'sale deeds' plaintiffs have executed, they will take action. According to plaintiffs, it is only then that they learned that the documents they have executed (Exts.X2 and X3 dated 08.06.1998) are sale deeds in favour of defendants 1 and 2. Thereon, plaintiffs filed O.S.No.561 of 1999 to declare thatExts.X2 and X3 are null and void. Along with the institution of suit plaintiffs filed I. A.No.4998 of 1999 for an order of temporary injunction to restrain defendants 1 and 2 dealing with the suit property. It is submitted that the said application was posted on 14.10.1999. On defendants 1 and 2 taking time, the application was posted on 05.11.1999. Defendants 1 and 2 on 16.10.1999 executed Ext. X1, sale deed No.4359 of 1991 in favour of defendants 3 and 4. It is the further case of plaintiffs that pursuant to Ext. X1, assignment deed defendants 3 and 4 forcibly occupied the ground floor of the building. Thereon plaintiffs got plaint in O.S.No.561of l999 amended to incorporate a prayer that Ext. X1 also may be declared as null and void and for mandatory injunction to direct defendants 3 and 4 to vacate the ground floor of the building.

3. Defendants 1 and 2 contested the suit and claimed that Exts.X2 and X3 are assignment deeds in their favour, taken for consideration. They denied that there was any loan transaction between them and plaintiffs or any agreement to execute deeds of mortgage. They also claimed that they transferred the property to defendants 3 and 4 as per Ext. X1, dated 16.10.1999. Defendants 3 and 4 raised similar contentions and claimed that plaintiffs are licensees of first floor of the building on an agreement to pay fee of Rs. 2500/- per month. Defendants 3 and 4 filed O.S.No.185 of 2002 for a mandatory injunction to direct plaintiffs (in O.S .No.561 of 1999) to vacate first floor of the building and for recovery of Rs. 1,16,000/- with interest @ 12% per annum being arrears of licensee with damages for future use and occupation. Plaintiffs in O.S.No.561 of 1999 who are defendants in O.S.No. 185 of 2002 contended, as averred in the plaint in O.S.No.561 of 1999 that as per the agreement with defendants 1 and 2, they executed Exts.X2 and X3 as if those documents are deeds of mortgage. They also contended that since those documents are null and void, defendants 3 and 4 acquired no right over the suit property by virtue of Ext. X1, assignment deed dated 16.10.1999. Trial court tried the suits joint