The above Civil Revision Petitions are filed against the Orders dated 25.06.2008 passed in I.A.No.6076 of 2008 in O.S.No.1951 of 1997 and I.A.No.6077 of 2008 in O.S.No.5440 of 2000 on the file of the IV Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.

2. The second plaintiff in O.S.No.1951 of 1997, who is also the second plaintiff in O.S.No.5440 of 2000, is the revision petitioner in both the petitions.

3. O.S.No.1951 of 1997 was filed by the father of the second plaintiff against the respondent herein, who is also one of the sons of the father of the revision petitioner herein, for a mandatory injunction directing the defendant/ respondent herein, his wife and children, to hand over the possession of schedule B property occupied by the defendant with his wife and children under leave and licence granted by the plaintiff.

4. The case of the plaintiff in O.S.No.1951 of 1997 is that, the defendant/respondent herein is his own son and he is residing with his wife and children in a portion of the schedule A property and portion of the property occupied by the respondent herein is B schedule property.

5. According to the plaintiff/father, his two married sons, i.e., the respondent herein and one K.Subramani are not helping him and therefore, he executed a new Will on 29.08.1996, bequeathing the entire A schedule property to his unmarried son, who is the revision petitioner herein. This made the other two sons angry and they threatened him with physical violence and compelled him to cancel the Will executed on 29.08.1996. This has caused deep pain and agony to the plaintiff/father, compelling him to file the suit for the aforesaid relief.

6. This suit was defended by the respondent herein by filing a written statement.

7. Thereafter, the plaintiff/father filed another suit in O.S.No.5440 of 2000 against the respondent herein for a direction, directing him to pay a sum of Rs.55,800/- with interest at the rate of 24% p.a. In this suit, the plaintiff/father stated that, he settled his A schedule property in favour of the revision petitioner herein by a registered Settlement deed dated 19. 2001. Therefore, the revision petitioner herein became the absolute owner of A schedule property and he has also given the right to the revision petitioner under the Settlement Deed to conduct the suit. It is further stated by the father that, the B schedule property was used by the respondent herein from 07. 1997 to 31.01.2000 and a sum of Rs.37,200/- is to be paid by the respondent herein for the said period towards use and occupation. After calculating the Electricity charges, water charges and maintenance charges, the plaintiff/father arrived at a sum of Rs.55,800/- being the total amount which is to be paid by the respondent herein. This suit is also being contested by the respondent herein by filing a written statement.

8. While so, the revision petitioner filed two impleading petitions, i.e., I.A.No.19298 of 2003 in O.S.No.1951 of 1997 and I.A.No.19299 of 2003 in O.S.No.5440 of 2000 to implead him as the second plaintiff in both the suits. Both the applications were dismissed by the trial court, against which, the revision petitioner filed C.M.A.No.31 of 2004 and C.M.A.No.32 of 2004. The lower Appellate Court allowed both the appeals and granted leave to the revision petitioner to go on record as the second plaintiff in both the suits. On the basis of the orders passed by the lower Appellate Court, the revision petitioner was impleaded as the second plaintiff in both O.S.No.1951 of 1997 and O.S.No.5440 of 2000.

9. Pending both the suits, the first plaintiff/father died on 27.02.2008 and the revision petitioner/second plaintiff filed two memos before the trial court, one in O.S.No.1951 of 1997 to record that he is the legal representative of the first plaintiff on the basis of the Settlement deed dated 19.09.2001 and he is entitled to continue the suit. A similar memo was filed in O.S.No.5440 of 2000 also. The trial court, on 26.03