(1.) CM Nos. 9230 -31 -C of 2009 in RSA No. 1249 of 2006
(2.) ALL the appeals are connected and they are being disposed of by a common order. The following substantial question of law arises for consideration in the appeals: -
(3.) THE learned counsel for the plaintiffs would start with a contention that they are not aggrieved as much about the dismissal of the suit for declaration as with the denial of the relief which was granted by the trial Court setting aside the mutation which was made in the name of the Municipal Committee on 08.04.1975. When I pointed out that the two reliefs were consequential to one another, the counsel would qualify the statement and contend that the objection to the decree of dismissal by the trial Court in relation to the prayer for declaration was no less important but the fact that the appellate Court modified the decree granted by the trial Court setting aside the mutation made in the name of the Municipal Committee was grossly erroneous.