1. The appellant in both the second appeals, namely, M.B. Subramaniam, as plaintiff, filed the suit O.S.No.14 of 2000 as against the first respondent herein and his father and others, seeking the following relief:

"to grant permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men, servants, agents, relatives and every one claiming under them in any way interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs suit properties".

The first respondent in both the appeals, namely, Ramasamy Gounder, filed the suit O.S.No.410 of 2004 (O.S.No.653 of 2003) as against the appellant herein, seeking the following relief:

"a) to direct the defendant to deliver possession of the suit property;

b) to direct the defendant to pay Rs.68,000/-with future interest at 6% p.a. from the date of suit till realization."

As such, both the suits were tried together by the lower Court, by conducting joint trial and pronounced the common judgment and decrees.

(b) In both the suits, the defendants concerned resisted the suit. During such joint trial, the said M.B. Subramaniam examined himself as P.W.1 apart from examining one Ramaswamy as P.W.2 and Balasubramaniam as P.W.3 and Exs.A1 to A19 were marked on his side. The said Ramasamy Gounder examined himself as D.W.1 apart from examining N. Subramaniam as D.W.2 and P. Subramaniam as D.W.3 and Ex.B1 to Ex.B6 were marked on his side.

(c) Ultimately the trial Court dismissed the suit O.S.No.14 of 2000 filed for permanent injunction by M.B. Subramaniam-the appellant in both the second appeals and decreed the suit O.S.No.410 of 2004 filed by Ramaswamy Gounder-the respondent in both the second appeals.

(d) Being dissatisfied with the said common judgments and decrees, A.S.Nos.6 and 7 of 2007 were filed by the appellant (M.B. Subramaniam) for nothing but to be dismissed by the first appellate Court confirming the common judgment and decrees of the lower Court.

2. Being unhinged and disconcerted by the said common judgment and decrees, these second appeals have been filed by M.B. Subramaniam on various grounds.

3. After hearing for some time the arguments on both sides, this Court felt that with the consent of both sides, both these matters could be disposed of finally by framing the following substantial questions of law.

1. Whether Arunachala Gounder had the unilateral right to cancel Ex.A6 by virtue of Ex.B3 without filing a suit for cancelling Ex.A6?

2. Whether Ex.A6 is a void document as put forth by the respondent-Ramasamy Gounder?

3. Whether both the Courts below were perverse in appreciating the evidence and giving a finding in favour of Ramasamy Gounder-the respondent?

4. Whether the suit filed by M.B. Subramaniam is bad for want of prayer for declaration of title?"

Heard both sides on these substantial questions of law.

Gamut of the case:

4. A deep analysis of and poring over the typed set of papers, including the judgments of both the Courts below, would demonstrate and display that M.B. Subramanian-the plaintiff in O.S.No.14 of 2000 and defendant in O.S.No.410 of 2004 (hereinafter referred to as the appellant in both the second appeals) filed the suit O.S.No.14 of 2000 for bare injunction, so as to safe-guard his possession as against the deceased Arunachala Gounder and his three sons, namely, Ramaswamy Gounder, Subbiyan and Shanmugam - on the death of Arunachala Gounder, his wife Karupathal also was added - on the ground that as per Ex.A6-the sale deed dated 11. 1999, the deceased Arunachala Gounder sold, in favour of the appellant, the suit property and he has been continuing in possession of the same and the fact also remains that previous to such purchase he had been in possession and enjoyment of the suit property as a tenant under Arunachala Gounder.

5. Whereas, Ramaswamy Gounder (hereinafter referred as the respondent in both the appeals) filed the suit O.S.No.410 of 2004, seeking recovery of possession on the ground that the tenancy of M.B. Subramaniam was terminated rela