1. These revisions were filed seeking to struck off the suits filed by the first respondent herein in O.S.No.2287 of 2000 pending on the file of the learned VIII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, O.S.No.4602 of 1989 pending on the file of the learned XVI Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai and O.S.No.10307 of 2010 pending on the file of the learned VI Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.

2. The suit in O.S.No.2287 of 2000 was filed by the first respondent herein for permanent injunction restraining the petitioner herein from alienating or encumbering the suit property.

3. The suit in O.S.No.4602 of 1989 was filed by the first respondent for a declaration that the sale deed dated 14.12.1988, executed by the second respondent in favour of the petitioner is invalid, null and void and not binding on the first respondent herein.

4. The suit in O.S.No.10307 of 2010 was filed by the first respondent for a declaration that the first respondent herein is the absolute owner of the entire suit property and for a declaration declaring that the agreement dated 02.11.1986, entered into between the first respondent and the second respondent in respect of the undivided = share of the suit property is unenforceable in pursuance of the registered release deed dated 24.11.1977, and for a permanent injunction restraining the petitioner and the second respondent herein from in any manner interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit property.

5. The facts in nutshell is set out here under:

(a) One Mr.Sundaresan, father of the respondents 1 and 2 has purchased the suit property. He died leaving behind his wife Mrs.Alamelu Ammal, his two sons the respondents 1 and 2 herein and two daughters. On 16.04.1966, the mother and two sisters of the respondents 1 and 2 executed a release deed in favour of the respondents 1 and 2. It is also alleged by the petitioner that on 02.11.1986, the respondents 1 and 2 entered into two separate agreements of sale with the petitioner to sell their respective undivided shares in the suit property. The second respondent in pursuance of the said agreement executed a registered sale deed in favour of the petitioner in respect of the ground floor portion on 13.12.1988.

(b) The first respondent has received consideration on various dates except a meager amount of Rs.74,499/-. Since he has evaded to execute the sale deed in favour of the petitioner, the petitioner has filed the suit in C.S.No.1586 of 1988, before this Court for specific performance. In the meanwhile, the first respondent has filed a suit for bare injunction to restrain the petitioner from interfering with his possession and the suit was numbered as C.S.No.130 of 1990.

(c) The suit in C.S.No.1586 of 1988, preferred by the petitioner for specific performance was decreed on 07.12.1995. Against the said decree, the first respondent preferred an appeal in O.S.A.No.250 of 1996. The suit in C.S.No.130 of 1990 preferred by the first respondent was dismissed and an appeal in O.S.A.No.251 of 1996 was filed. Both the appeals were dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court on 28.06.1999. The first respondent filed Special Leave Petitions in S.L.P.Nos.5703 and 5704 of 1999 against the orders passed in O.S.A.Nos.250 and 251 of 1996 and they were dismissed as withdrawn on 28.04.2000.

(d) Thereafter, the petitioner filed an execution petition in E.P.No.19 of 2000 in C.S.No.1586 of 1988 for execution of the sale deed and delivery of possession. On 05.03.2008, the E.P. was allowed by the learned Master. On 30.10.2009, the sale deed was executed by this Court on behalf of the first respondent. On 25.11.2009, the learned Master ordered delivery of possession of the first floor in occupation of the first respondent herein as per the decree referred to above.

(e) The first respondent preferred an application in Appln.No.6389 of 2009 against the order passed by the learned Master ordering delivery of possession to t