1. - These five appeals arises in identical factual circumstances, and involve identical questions, and are therefore, being decided by this common order.

2. The appellants are plaintiffs. In Appeal No. 434, 433 and 435 vide order dated 28.11.2005 record was ordered to be requisitioned, and in the meantime status quo was ordered to be maintained, which is continuing, while in the remaining two appeals, there is no interim stay order, nor the record has been called. Then, in Appeal No. 433, the sole appellant Chandra Prakash expired on 2.7.2007, and application filed for substitution of his legal representatives on 25.7.2007, which was not opposed by the other side, as such the same was allowed on the same day, and the amended cause title has also been taken on record.

3. Since in all the five cases separate suits were filed, though on the same date, and they were dismissed by separate judgments of the same date, and appeals have also been dismissed by separate orders of the same day by the learned lower Appellate Court, and since the factual aspect is common, for the sake of convenience, I take up the facts from the file of Second Appeal No. 434/2005.

4. The facts of the case