1. Aggrieved over the concurrent finding of the courts below in the suit filed for Permanent Injunction in O.S.160 of 2008 and Declaration and consequential injunction in O.S.No.66 of 2009, these Second Appeals are filed. Since the Courts below disposed of both the suits in a common judgment and the evidence was recorded in common in both the suits, this Court is inclined to dispose of both the appeals in a common judgment.

2. The brief facts leading to file of these Second Appeals are as follows :

O.S.No.66 of 2009

2.(a) The Plaintiffs are owners of the suit property by virtue of purchase in various sale deeds. They are enjoying the possession in the suit property and cultivating the property. Originally 7th Plaintiff has filed the suit in O.S.No.160 of 2008 against the Defendant No.2 for Permanent Injunction in respect of an extent of 1.19 Acres. the above suit it is contended by the defendants that 1st defendant entered into a sale agreement with 4th defendant father in law of the first Plaintiff in the capacity of power agent. Therefore, the present suit is filed contending that there is no sale agreement dated 21.11.2004 in favour of the defendant. It is stated by the plaintiffs that the 5th defendant is sister's son of 4th defendant and the 4th defendant's son was studying in Thanjavur. In order to engage the 5th Defendant as local guardian of the 4th Defendant's son Karthik, the 4th Defendant delivered blank papers and handed over to the 5th Defendant. Thereafter, it appears that there is a document created as sale agreement by the Defendants dated 21.11.2004. The original documents also stolen from the 7th Plaintiff by the 5th Defendant in collusion with the Defendants 1 to 3. When the 5th Defendant demanded demanded Rs.50,000/- to return the said document, the 1st Plaintiff lodged a complaint against him on 13.3.2008. According to the Plaintiff they are the owners of the suit property and in possession of the suit property. Hence, filed suit to declare the alleged sale deed dated 21.11.2004 between the 1st and 4th Defendants is null and void and directing to return the original sale deed and also permanent injunction restraining the defendants in any way interfering from the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit properties.

2.(b) The Defendants 1 to 3 filed Written statement stating that the suit properties never in possession of the Plaintiff from the year 2000. The suit properties were managed by one Jagadeesan. He has handed over the possession of the property to the 1st Defendant in the year 2000 and handed over the original document and receive the advance of Rs.2,00,000/-. Thereafter, he executed the agreement for sale on 21.11.2004, besides he has also gave a receipt on 24.10.2005 acknowledging the receipt of Rs.7,50,000/-. Ever since the defendants are in possession of the property one Lakshmi was in the suit property. 7th Plaintiff obtained exparte injunction in the suit filed by him in O.S.No.160 of 2008 and tried to evict her. Therefore, a police complaint was lodged against 7th Plaintiff by Lakshmi. It is the further contention of the Defendants that from the year 2002 to 2006 the Plaintiff has never objected the possession of the Defendants. When the matter stood thus the 1st Plaintiff has obtained exparte order from the Revenue Divisional Officer against the Defendants. It is the contention of the Defendants that the relief as prayed in the suit is not maintainable. The allegation that the agreement has been created in collusion with the 5th Defendant by using the blank papers is also denied. According to the Defendants since there is agreement for sale, the suit is not maintainable.

2.(c) The 5th Defendant has filed written statement supporting the case of the defendants stating that Jagadeesan has executed the sale agreement dated 21.11.2004. He was managing all the lands and he has given land to the 1st Defendant in the year 2000 after receiving advance of Rs.2,00,000/-. Further he has al