K. Raviraja Pandian, J.

The appellants, who are defendants in original suits Nos.209 of 1996 and 63 of 1995 filed Appeal Suits Nos.233 and 234 of 2000 against the judgment and decree of the trial Court made in those suits granting the relief of permanent injunction as prayed for with declaratory relief, in favour of the respondents/plaintiffs. The other four appeals in Tr.A.S. Nos. 1027 to 1030 of 2001 are filed aggrieved by the dismissal of the suits filed by the respective appellants/plaintiffs in those suits, for injunction against the respondents/plaintiffs in Original Suits Nos.353, 356, 359 and 404 of 1997.

2. The facts of the case is as follows:

The suit in O.S. Nos.209 of 1996 was filed by one Senthil Kumari against Sundaram, Dhanalakshmi and the legal heirs of Ramadoss for the relief of permanent injunction on the ground that the suit property in an extent of 66 cents was originally owned by one Rengasamy Naidu. One of the sons Ramanujam Naidu filed a suit in O.S. No.198 of 1937 against his father Rengasamy Naidu and his brother Rajagopal Naidu for the relief of injunction in respect of the suit property and other properties. In that suit a compromise decree was pa