K. RAVICHANDRABAABU, J.

1. C.R.P. (PD) No. 2225 of 2011 is filed challenging the order dated 28.4.2011 passed in I.A. No. 251 of 2011 in O.S. No. 548 of 2004 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Tirupur.

2. C.R.P. (PD) No. 2226 of 2011 is filed challenging the order dated 28.4.2011 passed in I.A. No. 252 of 2011 in O.S. No. 1135 of 2004 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Tirupur.

3. C.R.P. (PD) No. 2227 of 2011 is filed challenging the order dated 28.4.2011 passed in I.A. No. 253 of 2011 in O.S. No. 1136 of 2004 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Tirupur.

4. All the above three interim applications were filed by the defendants in the respective suits, under Section 10 CPC seeking for stay of the trial of the suits until final disposal of S.T.A. No. 39 of 1976 pending before this Court. The petitioners in all these Civil Revision Petitions are the plaintiffs in the abovesaid suits. Since the issue involved in all the three C.R.Ps. is one and the same, they are dealt with in common. For the sake of convenience, the petitioners in these CRPs. are referred to as the plaintiffs and the respondents in all these CRPs. are referred to as the defendants.

5(a). O.S. No. 548 of 2004 was filed by the plaintiff for declaration to declare that the suit property belongs to the plaintiff and for a direction to the defendants 2 to 4 to handover the possession of the suit property to the plaintiff by demolishing the superstructure raised by them.

(b) O.S. No. 1135 of 2004 was filed by the plaintiff for declaration to declare her title to the suit property and for direction to the second defendant to handover the possession of the suit property to the plaintiff and for a direction to the second defendant to pay damages of Rs. 7,200/- for use and occupation and for paying future damages at the rate of Rs. 200/- per month.

(c) O.S. No. 1136 of 2004 was filed by the plaintiff for declaration to declare his title to the suit property and to direct the second defendant to handover the possession of the same and for damages of Rs. 5,400/- for use and occupation from the second defendant and for damages of Rs. 3,600/- from the defendants 3 to 5 for use and occupation.

6. The case of the plaintiffs in all the above three suits is that an extent of 8.43 acres comprised in T.D. 174, situated in old S.F. No. 209/1 of Tirupur Village, Palladam Taluk, including the suit schedule property and other lands, were granted to one Mavalinga Naicker, the ancestor of the respective plaintiffs' vendor as Devadayam Inams for the purpose of performing "Ukkirana Uliam" for the two Temples, namely Arulmighu Veeraragha Perumal Temple and Arulmighu Visweswaraswamy Temple, located in Tirupur Town and that the Ukkirana Uliam is the service to secure ornaments and utensils of both the Temples. It is their further case that the service-holder at the time of Inam Settlement in the year 1863, was Mavalinga Naicker, the ancestor of the plaintiffs' vendor. Thus, it is contended that as per the Inams Abolition Act, the Special Settlement Tahsildar granted patta to all the heirs of service-holders, who were in possession and enjoyment of the suit properties, from whom the plaintiffs purchased the respective suit properties by way of sale deeds. Based upon such claim of title over the suit properties, the plaintiffs have filed the abovesaid suits.

7. The first defendant in all the abovesaid suits is the said Temples. It is the case of the Temples that the plaintiff has not purchased the suit properties from the respective vendors and defendants 2 to 4 are the tenants under the first defendant and all of them were paying monthly rent to the first defendant. It is the further case of the first defendant that the vendors of the plaintiffs do not have any valid title and possession of the suit properties and therefore, the sale deeds said to have been executed in favour of the plaintiffs cannot convey any title and that the first defendant is the true own