1. These two appeals are focussed by the defendants as against the common judgment and decrees dated 30.11.2005 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, [Fast Track Court No.I] Chennai in O.S.Nos.12891 and 12960 of 1996 respectively.

2. The parties are referred to here under according to their litigative status and ranking before the trial Court.

3. A summation and summarisation of the relevant facts absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of these two appeals would run thus:

The plaintiffs filed two suits, relating to one big property, by citing almost each half of it in the suits with the following prayer:

O.S.No.12891 of 1996:

“to pass judgment and decree as against the defendants-

a] declaring that the sale deed executed by the defendants 1 to 17 to and in favour of 18th defendant under registered document No.1028/95 dated 01.09.1995 of the suit property belong to the Chetpet Subbadramma Trust, bearing Old Door No.34 and New No.48, now combined as No.20, Ramakrishnan Street, Madras-1 is null and void and bogus;

b] granting permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men, agents, servants and all those act under their direction from acting on the basis of bogus documents and from making mutation of records in the TNEB, Corporation of Madras, Revenue Authority, Water and Sewerage Board and also restraining them from entering the suit premises bearing Old Door No.34 and New No.48, now combined as No.20, Ramakrishnan Street, Madras-1 and also from causing disturbances to the tenants of the suit property.

c] staying all further proceedings in the RCOP No.2684/95 pending disposal in the XIII Court of Small Causes at Madras and RCOP No.477/96 pending disposal in the X Court of Small causes at Madras filed by the 18th defendant and Mrs.Manju Devi against the chief tenant E.M.Narasimhalu of the plaintiffs till the disposal of the suit and for costs.”

O.S.No.12960 of 1996:

“to pass judgment and decree as against the defendants -

a] declaring that the sale deed executed by the defendants 1 to 17 to and in favour of 18th defendant under registered document No.1027/95 dated 01.09.1995 of the suit property belong to the Chetpet Subbadramma Trust, bearing Old Door No.34 and New No.48, now combined as No.20, Ramakrishnan Street, Madras-1 is null and void and bogus;

b] granting permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men, agents, servants and all those act under their direction from acting on the basis of bogus documents and from making mutation of records in the TNEB, Corporation of Madras, Revenue Authority, Water and Sewerage Board and also restraining them from entering the suit premises bearing Old Door No.34 and New No.48, now combined as No.20, Ramakrishnan Street, Madras-1 and also from causing disturbances to the tenants of the suit property.

c] staying all further proceedings in the RCOP No.2684/95 pending disposal in the XIII Court of Small Causes at Madras and RCOP No.477/96 pending disposal in the X Court of Small causes at Madras filed by the 18th defendant and Mr.Dinesh Kumar against the chief tenant E.M.Narasimhalu of the plaintiffs till the disposal of the suit and for costs.” (extracted as such)

4. The gist and kernel, the pith and marrow of the averments, as stood exposited from the plaints would run thus:

(i) According to the plaintiffs, the suit property is a Trust property belonging to one Subbadrama Estate, which is a charitable Trust; by virtue of it having been purchased for the Trust by its original trustees namely Vattam Gopala Chetty and Chockanadhan Chetty vide sale deed dated 19.10.1921 (Ex.A1) and found fortified by he mortgage deed dated 19.10.1921 (Ex.A17); the confirmation deed dated 22.12.1926 (Ex.A18) and the discharge receipt dated 22.12.1996 (Ex.A19).

(ii) Vattam Gopala Chetty appointed one Chikkakulam Guruviah Chetty as clerk/accountant to manage the accounts of the said Chetput Subbadramma Trust. The said Vattam Gopala C