The unsuccessful plaintiff in both the courts below in O.S.No.195 of 1990 has filed Second Appeal in S.A.No.477 of 1995. Likewise the same party who was the defendants in O.S.No.201 of 1990 having suffered a decree of declaration and injunction has filed Second Appeal No.496 of 1995. The suit filed by the appellant in O.S.No.195 of 1990 is one for injunction, while O.S.No.195 of 1990 is relating to the suit for permanent injunction to 1.01 acres of land comprised in Survey No.46/1A and 6 cents of land comprised in Survey No.46/1B in Valapadi Village, the suit property in O.S.No.201 of 1990 filed by the respondent for declaration of title is in respect of 2½ cents of land comprised in Survey No.46/1B in Valapadi Village.

2. The case of the plaintiff in O.S.No.195 of 1990 was that he has purchased the suit property as stated above from one Marimuthu, S/o Vaiyapuri under a sale deed dated 22.02.l988 marked as Ex.B.1. According to the plaintiff, the defendants having failed in their efforts to fight with the plaintiff have used the passage situated in Survey No.46/1B as a cartrack and they have also attempted to interfere with the agricultural operations by the plaintiff in the suit property on 212. 1989. However, the case of the defendants in the said suit, who are the respondents herein are that while it is true that the plaintiff has purchased under the sale deed dated 22.02.1988 from one Marimuthu, the said sale is not valid. The defense was on the basis that the said Marimuthu himself has no right in the property comprised in Survey No.46/1B. It is their case that they have been using the carttrack situated in Survey No.46/1B exclusively and they have also obtained patta and are in exclusive enjoyment. It is also the case of the defendants in the said suit who are the plaintiff in O.S.No.201 of 1990 filed by them for declaration in respect of 2½ cents situated in Survey No.46/1B Valapadi Village as stated above that the first plaintiff in the said O.S.No.201 of 1990 is the son of the second plaintiff. The second plaintiff under a sale deed executed by one Ayyammal and Arumugam dated 02.02.1955 marked as Ex.A.2 has purchased the said suit property and it is their case that the defendant in the said suit who is the plaintiff in O.S.No.195 of 1990 after purchasing the properties on the Northern side of the plaintiff’s property under the sale deed dated 22.02.1988 from one Marimuthu, S/o Vaiyapuri under Ex.B.1 has attempted to interfere with the use of the exclusive carttrack situated in Survey No.46/1B for the purpose of reaching their property situated in Survey No.46/2A which has resulted in filing of the said suit for declaration. Therefore, it is clear that the actual dispute is relating to the title and possession in respect of Survey No.46/1B at Valapadi Village.

3. Both the courts below have found that while Ayyammal and Arumugam have sold the suit property in O.S.No.201 of 1990 to the plaintiffs, who are the respondents in the appeal under a sale deed dated 02.02.1955 marked as Ex.A.2, the same Arumugam has sold the same property along with his minor son under a sale deed dated 22.05.1957 marked as Ex.A.7 to one Vaiyapuri, who is the father of the vendor of the plaintiff in O.S.No.195 of 1990, who is the appellant in these appeals and therefore, the plaintiff in O.S.No.195 of 1990 relied upon Ex.B.1 document dated 22.02.1988 from Marimuth, S/o Vaiyapuri cannot sustain his claim and it was on that basis the suit was filed by the appellant in O.S.No.195 of 1990. It is as against the concurrent findings by both the courts below the present second appeals are filed. While admitting the Second appeals this Court has framed the following substantial questions of law:

Question of law in S.A.No.477 of 1995

"a) When the 1st respondent has attested the mortgage deed in which the suit property formed the subject matter, will he not be estopped from later claiming title to the suit property?

b) Whether the judgements