Revenue records are not documents.

The unsuccessful defendant in O.S.Nos.2977, 2973, 2975, 2976, 2978, 2979 and 2980 of 1982 on the file of Principal District Munsif Court, Trichy have preferred Second Appeal Nos.1038 and 1176 to 1181 of 1991 respectively aggrieved against the judgment and decree made in A.S.Nos.172, 169, 170, 171 and 173 to 175 of 1990 on the file of Principal District Judge, Trichy, confirming the judgment and decree of the trial Court dated 7.3.1990.

2. The case in brief for disposal of all the appeals is as follows: Trichy Thanjavur Diaseas of Church of South Indian Association Trust represented by the President filed the suits as plaintiff against the respective defendants for delivery of possession of the suit property and also for past and future arrears of rent. The plaintiff had purchased the right, title and interest of the suit property under two registered documents dated 27.9.1981 and 28.9.1981 from the legal heirs of Tmt.Man Singh. The respective defendants in the suits are tenants in the property under the father of the plaintiff on a monthly rent payable on the 5th of every succeeding month. The tenancy was oral. The plaintiff is a public charitable institution. After purchase by the plaintiff, they have duly communicated all the defendants, but they sent a reply containing false averments. Again another notice was also sent terminating the tenancy. Now, the plaintiff require the suit property for their own purpose and hence, the suits.

3. The defendants in the respective suits filed separate written statement as follows: Neither the plaintiff nor their vendor have got any right, title and interest in the property. The sale deed relied on by the plaintiff are not valid and binding on them. The suit properties re situate in Mutharasanallur Murungaipettai village in Survey No.157 and it is a Government Natham poromboke. They were never tenants under the plaintiffs predecessor-in-interest. They never paid any rent to any of them. The superstructure in the properties was put up only by the defendants and they are residing for the last 15 years. There was flood in 1977 and thereafter, they have spent considerable amount for effecting repairs. The Court-fee paid by the plaintiff is also not proper and correct since there is no relationship of landlord and tenant. The plaintiff ought to have filed the suit for declaration. The plaintiffs are also prevented from instituting the suit in view of City Tenants Protection Act and Tamilnadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. The defendants have also prescribed their title to the property by adverse possession and the suits filed by the plaintiff are also barred by time and, as such, no relief can be granted to the plaintiff.

4. The trial Court framed 11 issues in O.S.No.2977 of 1982, 8 issues in O.S.No.2963 of 1982, 12 issues in O.S.No.2975 of 1982, 8 issues in O.S.No.2976 of 1982, 12 issues in O.S.No.2978 of 1982, 8 issues in O.S.No.2979 of 1982, and 11 issues in O.S.No.2980 of 1982. On behalf of the plaintiff, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-168 were marked. On the side of the defendants, D.Ws.1 to 8 were examined and Exs.B-1 to B-3 were marked. The report and plans filed by the Commissioner were marked as Exs.C-1 to C-3. The evidence was recorded in O.S.No.2978 of 1982 and it was treated as evidence in all the other suits. The trial Court decreed the suits and granted the relief of recovery of possession to the plaintiff and left open the arrears of rent for separate proceedings. One month time was granted for each defendant to vacate from the property. Aggrieved against this, the respective defendants preferred the aforesaid appeals and the learned Judge after hearing the parties, dismissed the appeals confirming the judgment and decree of the trial Court. Aggrieved against this, the defendants, have come forward with the present second appeals.

5. Theparties and the subject matter of relief are one and the same in all the appeals and, as such a common judgment