the plaintiff and his rights over the suit property. The plaintiff also took the stand that he had not executed any power of attorney in favour of the second defendant as claimed by him in O.S.No.342 of 1993. The fourth defendant contested the suit contending, among others, that the decree in O.S.No.56 of 1985 is not vitiated in any manner and that the same is binding on plaintiff and the suit property. Prior to the institution of the present suit, the fourth defendant had filed O.S.No.58 of 2000, seeking a decree of injunction restraining the plaintiff and others from trespassing into the suit property. As indicated above, the suits were tried together. On an elaborate consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, the trial court accepted the case of the fourth defendant and dismissed O.S.No.89 of 2000. In the light of the decision in O.S.No.89 of 2000, O.S.No.58 of 2000 was decreed. The plaintiff, who is aggrieved by the said decision of the trial court has though preferred appeals, the appellate court, on a reappraisal of the evidence on record, confirmed the decision of the trial court. Hence these second appeals by the plaintiff.
