JUDGMENT

Appellants in these cases are the defendants in O.S.1/2001 and O.S.32/2002. They are the plaintiffs in O.S.16/2002. O.S.16/2002 was dismissed by the trial Court. O.S.1/2001 was decreed granting recovery of possession of B schedule property after demolishing the plaint C schedule lean to and the shed described therein. O.S. 32/2002 filed by the very same plaintiff was decreed granting a permanent prohibitory injunction against the appellants herein from enclosing the pavement portion towards west of the plaint schedule property or interfering with the plaintiff's user of the above portion of the property.

2. Challenging the decree and judgment in the three suits mentioned above, appellants herein filed appeals before the District Court. The appellate Court concurred with the findings entered by the trial Court and dismissed all the appeals. Hence, these three Second Appeals have been filed.

3. Plaint schedule property and the property claimed by the appellant were the properties partitioned as per Ext.A2 partition deed dated 27-4-1964. One Koyakutty had purchased the plaint schedule property shown in the schedules to the plaint filed by the respondent herein (O.S. 1/2001 and O