JUDGMENT

These two Appeals raises a common question and hence are being considered and disposed of together. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the Appeals are as follows:

2. O.S.No.698/2005 is a suit preferred by the 1^st respondent herein in both these appeals (hereinafter called as “the mortgagee”) seeking for declaration of title and possession and a consequential injunction restraining the defendant/appellant herein from trespassing into the plaint schedule property.

3. The 1^st respondent/plaintiff claimed title over the property by virtue of an assignment of mortgage executed by the 1^st defendant therein on 04.02.1967 as Document No.408/67. It is contended that the plaint schedule property was originally mortgaged by the 1^st defendant to one Retnamma and therein by Document No.2349/67, the plaintiff has purchased the mortgage rights from the above mentioned mortgagee. While so, there was an attempt made by the defendants in O.S.No.698/2005 to trespass into the plaint schedule property and also take possession of the same and hence the suit. The defendants resisted the suit by filing separate written statement. The 3^rd defendant in the suit contended that on 16.07.1981,