Sadasiva Aiyar, J.

1. These three appeals have arisen out. of three suits brought, by the same plaintiffs. The suits were tried together and were disposed of by the Temporary Safe, ordinate Court of Tanjore in the plaintiffs favour by one and the fame judgment-Appeal Suit No. 248 of 1914 was filed directly in the High Court. The other the appeals were filed in the Tanjore District. Court and were transferred o this Court to he heard along with Appeal Suit No.- 248 of 1914.

2. (2) The suits were brought in ejectment by five of the six trustees pf the Manthrapureeswaramswamy temple, the 6th trustee who did not care to join in the suits he being impleaded as one pf the defendants in each suit (2nd, 3rd and 5th defendant respectively). He allo(sic)ed all the three suits to proceed ex parte so far as he was concerned.

3. (3) The plaints and the written statements of the contesting defendants are very similar in all the suits. Thirteen issues are common to the three suits. In one of the suits (Appeal Suit No. 115 of 1915---Original Suit No, 42 of 1913), there is one issue: "Did first defendant execute a lease deed to the trustees in 1899 in respect pf plaint item 12," which is pecul