Subsequently, the plaint was amended transporting the second respondent as the second plaintiff and including certain averments that the said Thayarammal had filed the suit O.S.No.726 of 1987 and had obtained a preliminary decree and that, final decree on the foot of the mortgage deed and that, she had brought the suit property to sale and that, the second respondent had purchased the suit property in the Court auction sale held on 15.4.1989, which was duly confirmed and that the sale certificate was also issued. When the second respondent went to take delivery of the suit property the appellant and the fourth defendant, who is the fourth respondent raised obstruction. The suit was decreed and delivery was ordered. Against that an appeal and C.M.A. were filed, and they failed. Therefore, the present two appeals have been filed.

2. Mr.Viswanathan, learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the property was never intended to be the exclusive property of the first respondent. Valuable property had deliberately been sold by the first respondent to the second respondent herein to defeat the rights of the co-owners. Both the Courts had totally failed to appreciate the evi