The revision petitioners in all these three petitions are the father and his minor daughter who are the defendants in the suits O.S.264/2013, O.S.374/2013 and O.S.290/2013 pending on the file of Principal District Munsif, Thoothukudi.

2. The subject matter in all these revision petitions centres around 68 cents of land purchased on 03.03.2004 by G.Muniratnam, who is the first revision petitioner herein. After purchase, the first revision petitioner has executed a General Power of Attorney to one M.Sumathi w/o Murali on 15.07.2010 authorising her to deal with the said property as his Agent. Based on the power, his Agent Sumathi has sold 4 cents to her elder daughter Mallika on 26.07.2010. Soon thereafter, on 25.10.2010, the first revision petitioner has settled the property in the name of his minor daughter Sakthi Mageshwari, the second revision petitioner herein. According to the first revision petitioner, on settling the property in the name of his minor daughter, the General Power of Attorney dated 15.07.2010 executed by him in favour of Tmt.Sumathi got implicitly revoked under Section 207 of the Indian Contract Act and he also explicitly cancelled the power by informing his Agent through telegram and to the general public through paper publication. Whereas, Tmt.Sumathi, the Power Agent of the first revision petitioner on knowing the settlement deed executed by the principal, has lodged a criminal complaint against the first revision petitioner on 03.05.2011 resulting in a counter complaint by the first revision petitioner on 09.05.2011.

3. After complaints against each other, Tmt.Sumathi based on the power of attorney deed dated 15.07.2010, claiming herself as Power Agent of G.Munirathinam has conveyed about 13 cents of the subject land to her son Senthilkumar and two others by names, Nallathambi @ Thangam and Muthuraman on 18.05.2011 and another 13 cents to her second son M.Madhavan and second daughter Nagajothi on 23.05.2011. In this connection, the first revision petitioner had given a complaint to the District Registrar, Registration Department to cancel these two sale deeds and succeeded in getting those two sale deeds cancelled. Aggrieved by the cancellation of the sale deeds, Muthuraman who is one of the purchasers from the Power Agent Tmt.Sumathi has filed O.S.445/2012 to set aside the order of of the District Registrar cancelling the sale deed dated 18.05.2011. The other purchasers from the power agent filed W.P.21979/2012 to set aside the order passed by the District Registrar. The writ petition was allowed on 18.09.2012 with a direction to the District Registrar to hear the purchasers before passing any order on the complaint given by the revision petitioners.

4. In the said background, O.S.374/2011 was filed by Senthilkumar, Nallathambi and Muthuraman and O.S 390/2011 was filed by M.Madhavan and M.Nagajothi against the revision petitioners and Tmt.Sumathi for the following reliefs:-

(a) To declare the settlement deed dated 25.10.2010 of the first defendant/first revision petitioner herein in favour of the second defendant/second revision petitioner herein as null and void and

(b) to restrain the first defendant/ first revision petitioner or his men or agents from interfering with their enjoyment of the suit property by way of injunction.

5. In the above two suits, the revision petitioners, alleging fraud and collusion, want of cause of action and maintainability filed interlocutory applications to reject the plaints under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC. The Trial Court dismissed the same holding that the plea raised by the revision petitioners involves mixed question of law and facts. Only after trial, the validity of the settlement deed or the sale deeds could be decided. CRP.1995/2013 and CRP.1996/2013 are directed against the orders passed in those interlocutory applications.

6. Pending these two suits, the District Registrar on the direction of the Hon'ble High Court in the order passed in W.P. 21979/2012, after n