P.R. Shivakumar, J.

Mohammed Abdullah Sait filed a suit in O.S. No. 483/2011 on the file of the trial court (Court of III Additional Subordinate Judge, Madurai) against Late T.M.V.N. Sahasranamam for a permanent injunction restraining him from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property described in the schedule to the said plaint. In the said suit, T.M.V.N. Sahasranamam, who figured as the sole defendant, preferred a counter-claim claiming that he was in possession and enjoyment of the suit property and praying for a permanent injunction against Mohammed Abdullah Sait (the plaintiff therein) not to interfere with his alleged possession and enjoyment of the suit property.

2. Besides making such a counter-claim in O.S. No. 483/2011 filed by Mohammed Abdullah Sait, the said Sahasranamam, filed another suit in O.S. No. 427/2011 against (1) S. Pakeer Maideen, (2) S. Sahul Hameed and (3) Mohammed Abdullah Sait (plaintiff in O.S. No. 483/2011) arraying them as defendants 1 to 3 respectively, for the relief of permanent injunction restraining them from interfering with his alleged peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property shown as the suit property in the plaint schedule in O.S. No. 427/2011. It is pertinent to note that the suit property in both the suits is one and the same.

3. After framing necessary issues in both the suits, a joint trial was conducted. The learned trial judge, at the conclusion of trial considered the evidence and pronounced a common judgment dated 10.04.2013 dismissing the suit O.S. No. 483/2011 filed by Mohammed Abdullah Sait with cost, allowed the counter-claim made by T.M.V.N. Sahasranamam and decreed the suit O.S. No. 427/2011 filed by T.M.V.N. Sahasranaman with cost. As against the said common judgment and decrees passed in the said suits and the counter-claim, three appeals were filed in A.S. Nos. 18/2013, 19/2013 and 20/2013 on the file of VI Additional District Judge, Madurai. A.S. No. 18/2013 was filed by Mohammed Abdullah Sait, who was the sole plaintiff in O.S. No. 483/2011 against the dismissal of the said suit. A.S. No. 19/2013 came to be filed by Pakeer Maideen, Shahul Hameed (defendants 1 and 2 in O.S. No. 427/2011) and the above said Mohammed Abdullah Sait (3rd defendant in O.S. No. 427/2011/sole plaintiff in O.S. No. 483/2011) against the decree granted in favour of T.M.V.N. Sahasranamam in O.S. No. 427/2011. A.S. No. 20/2013 came to be filed by Mohammed Abdullah Sait (the sole plaintiff in O.S. No. 483/2011) challenging the decree granted in favour of Sahasranamam in respect of the counter-claim made by him, who was the sole defendant in O.S. No. 483/2011.

4. During the pendency of the appeals in A.S.Nos.18 to 20 of 2013, Sahasranamam, who figured as the sole respondent in all the three appeals died and his LRs were impleaded as respondents 2 to 6 in all those three appeals. After a joint hearing of all the three appeals, by a common judgment dated 25.10.2013, the learned lower appellate judge allowed all the three appeals, set aside the decrees passed by the trial court, decreed the suit filed by Mohammed Abdullah Sait in O.S. No. 483/2011 as prayed for by him, rejected the counter-claim made by T.M.V.N. Sahasranamam in the said suit and dismissed the suit O.S. No. 427/2011 filed by T.M.V.N. Sahasranamam without cost.

5. As against the decree passed in A.S. No. 18/2013, the respondents 2 to 6 therein have filed S.A. No. 836/2013. They have also filed S.A. No. 837/2013 against the decree passed by the lower appellate court in A.S. No. 19/2013. As against the decree passed in A.S. No. 20/2013, which arose out of a decree passed in the counter-claim made by T.M.V.N. Sahasranamam in O.S. No. 483/2011, the LRs of the counter-claimant, who figured as respondents 2 to 6 in the said appeal before the lower appellate court, have preferred S.A.(MD) No.838/2013.

6. All the three appeals were admitted on 11.12.2013 and the following questions were formulated at the