We establish a common n -tupled fixed point theorem for hybrid pair of mappings under new contractive condition. It is to be noted that to find n -tupled coincidence point, we do not use the condition of continuity of any mapping involved. An example supporting to our result has also been cited. We improve, extend and generalize several known results. Let ( X, d ) be a metric space and CB ( X ) be the set of all nonempty closed bounded subsets of X . Let D ( x, A ) denote the distance from x to A ⊂ X and H denote the Hausdorff metric induced by d , that is, The study of fixed points for multivalued contractions and non-expansive mappings using the Hausdorff metric was initiated by Markin [10] : The existence of fixed points for various multivalued contractive mappings has been studied by many authors under different conditions. For details, we refer the reader to [3 , 4 , 6 , 7 , 12] and the reference therein. The theory of multivalued mappings has application in control theory, convex optimization, differential inclusions and economics. In [1] , Bhaskar and Lakshmikantham established some coupled fixed point theorems and apply these results to study the existence and uniqueness of solution for periodic boundary value problems. Lakshmikantham and Ciric [9] proved coupled coincidence and common coupled fixed point theorems for nonlinear contractive mappings in partially ordered complete metric spaces, extended and generalized the results of Bhaskar and Lakshmikantham [1] , Chandok, Sintunavarat and Kumam [2] established some coupled coincidence point and coupled common fixed point theorems for a pair of mappings having a mixed g-monotone property in partially ordered G-metric spaces. Kumam et al. [8] proved some tripled fixed point theorems in fuzzy normed spaces. Rahimi, Radenovic, Soleimani Rad [11] introduced some new definitions about quadrupled fixed point and obtained some new quadrupled fixed point results in abstract metric spaces. Imdad, Soliman, Choudhury and Das [5] introduced the concept of n -tupled fixed point, n -tupled coincidence point and proved some n -tupled coincidence point and n -tupled fixed point results for single valued mapping. These concepts was extended by Deshpande and Handa [4] to multivalued mappings and obtained n -tupled coincidence points and common n -tupled fixed point theorems involving hybrid pair of mappings under generalized Mizoguchi-Takahashi contraction. In [4] , Deshpande and Handa introduced the following for multivalued mappings: Definition 1.1. Let X be a nonempty set, F : X^r → 2 ^X (a collection of all nonempty subsets of X ) and g be a self-mapping on X . An element ( x ¹ , x ² ,…, x^r ) ∈ X^r is called (1) an r−tupled fixed point of F if x ¹ ∈ F ( x ¹ , x ² ,…, x^r ), x ² ∈ F ( x ² ,…, x^r , x ¹ )…, x^r ∈ F ( x^r , x ¹ ,…, x ^r−1 ). (2) an r-tupled coincidence point of hybrid pair { F, g } if g ( x ¹ ) ∈ F ( x ¹ , x ² ,…, x^r ), g ( x ² ) ∈ F ( x ² ,…, x^r , x ¹ ),…, g ( x^r ) ∈ F ( x^r , x ¹ ,…, x ^r−1 ). (3) a common r−tupled fixed point of hybrid pair { F, g } if x ¹ = g ( x ¹ ) ∈ F ( x ¹ , x ² ,…, x^r ), x ² = g ( x ² ) ∈ F ( x ² ,…, x^r , x ¹ ),…, x^r = g ( x^r ) ∈ F ( x^r , x ¹ ,…, x ^r−1 ). We denote the set of r −tupled coincidence points of mappings F and g by C { F, g }. Note that if ( x ¹ , x ² ,…, x^r ) ∈ C { F, g }, then ( x ² ,…, x^r , x ¹ ),…, ( x^r , x ¹ ,…, x ^r−1 ) are also in C { F, g }. Definition 1.2. Let F : X^r → 2 ^X be a multivalued mapping and g be a self-mapping on X . The hybrid pair { F, g } is called w−compatible if g ( F ( x ¹ , x ² ,…, x^r )) ⊆ F ( g ( x ¹ ), g ( x ² ),…, g ( x^r )) whenever ( x ¹ , x ² ,…, x^r ) ∈ C { F, g }. Definition 1.3. Let F : X^r → 2 ^X be a multivalued mapping and g be a self-mapping on X . The mapping g is called F − weakly commuting at some point ( x ¹ , x ² ,…, x^r ) ∈ X^r if g ² ( x ¹ ) ∈ F ( g ( x ¹ ), g ( x ² ),…, g ( x^r )), g ² ( x ² ) ∈ F ( g ( x ² ),…, g ( x^r ), g ( x ¹ )),…, g ² ( x^r ) ∈ F ( g ( x^r ), g ( x ¹ ),…, g ( x ^r−1 )). Lemma 1.1. Let ( X, d ) be a metric space. Then, for each a ∈ X and B ∈ CB ( X ), there is b ₀ ∈ B such that D ( a, B ) = d ( a , b ₀ ), where D ( a, B ) = inf _b∈B d ( a, b ). In this paper, we establish a common n −tupled fixed point theorem for hybrid pair of mappings satisfying new contractive condition. It is to be noted that to find n −tupled coincidence point, we do not use the condition of continuity of any mapping involved. Our result improves, extend, and generalize the results of Bhaskar and Lakshmikantham [1] and Lakshmikantham and Ciric [9] . An example is also given to validate our result. Let Φ denote the set of all functions φ : [0; +∞) → [0; +∞) satisfying (i_φ) φ is non-decreasing, (ii_φ) φ(t) < t for all t >0, (iii_φ) lim_r→t+ φ(r) < t for all t > 0 and Ψ denote the set of all functions ψ : [0, +∞) → [0, +∞) which satisfies (i_ψ) ψ is continuous, (ii_ψ) ψ(t) < t, for all t > 0. Note that, by ( i_ψ ) and ( ii_ψ ) we have that ψ ( t ) = 0 if and only if t = 0. For simplicity, we define the following: Theorem 2.1.   Let ( X, d ) be a metric space. Assume F : X^r → CB ( X ) and   g : X → X be two mappings satisfying for all x ¹ , x ² ,…, x^r , y ¹ , y ² ,…, y^r ∈ X. where φ ∈ Φ and ψ ∈Ψ. Furthermore assume that F ( X^r ) ⊆ g ( X ) and g ( X ) is a complete subset of X. Then F and g have an r−tupled coincidence point. Moreover, F and g have a common r−tupled fixed point, if one of the following conditions holds: ( a ) F and g are w−compatible . lim _i→∞   gⁱx ¹ = y ¹ , lim _i→∞   gⁱx ² = y ² , …, lim _i→∞   gⁱx^r = y^r , for some ( x ¹ , x ² , …, x^r ) ∈ C { F, g } and for some y ¹ , y ² , …, y^r ∈ X and g is continuous at y ¹ , y ² , … , y^r . ( b ) g is F−weakly commuting for some ( x ¹ , x ² , …, x^r ) ∈ C { F, g }, gx ¹ , gx ² , …, gx^r are fixed points of g, that is , g ² x ¹ = gx ¹ , g ² x ² = gx ² , …, g ² x^r = gx^r . ( c ) g is continuous at x ¹ , x ² , …, x^r . lim _i→∞   gⁱy ¹ = x ¹ , lim _i→∞   gⁱy ² = x ² , …, lim _i→∞   gⁱy^r = x^r for some ( x ¹ , x ² , …, x^r ) ∈ C { F, g } and for some y ¹ , y ² , …, y^r ∈ X . ( d ) g ( C { F, g }) is a singleton subset of C { F, g }. Proof. Let ∈ X be arbitrary. Then F ( ), …, F ( ) are well defined. Choose ∈ F ( ), …, g ∈ F ( ) because F ( X^r ) ⊆ g ( X ). Since F : X^r → CB ( X ), therefore by Lemma 1.1, there exist z ¹ ∈ F ( ), …, z ^r ∈ F ( ) such that Since F ( X^r ) ⊆ g ( X ), there exist ∈ such that z ¹ = , z ² = , …, z^r = Thus Continuing this process, we obtain sequences ⊂ X , ⊂ X , …, ⊂ X such that for all i ∈ N , we have ∈ F , ∈ F , …, ∈ F such that Thus Similarly Combining them, we get which implies, by ( ii_φ ); that This shows that the sequence defined by δ_i = is a decreasing sequence of positive numbers. Then there exists δ ≥ 0 such that We shall prove that δ = 0. Suppose that δ > 0. Letting i → ∞ in (2.2), by using (2.3) and ( iii_φ ), we get which is a contradiction. Hence We now prove that are Cauchy sequences in ( X, d ). Suppose, to the contrary, that one of the sequences is not a Cauchy sequence. Then there exists an ε > 0 for which we can find subsequences of of of such that We can choose i ( k ) to be the smallest positive integer satisfying (2:5). Then By (2.5), (2.6) and triangle inequality, we have Letting k → ∞ in the above inequality and using (2.4), we get By triangle inequality, we have Thus Since , therefore by (2.1) and by triangle inequality, we have Thus Similarly Combining them, we get By (2.8) and (2.9), we get Letting k → ∞ in the above inequality, by using (2.4), (2.7), ( A ), ( i_ψ ), ( ii_ψ ) and ( iii_φ ), we get which is a contradiction. This shows that are Cauchy sequences in g ( X ). Since g ( X ) is complete, thus there exist x ¹ , x ² , …, x^r ∈ X such that Now, since therefore by using condition (2.1), we get Letting i → ∞ in the above inequality, by using (2.10), ( A ), ( i_ψ ), ( ii_ψ ) and ( iii_φ ), we get D(gx¹, F(x¹, x², …, x^r)) ≤ φ(t) + 0 = 0 + 0 = 0. Thus D(gx¹, F(x¹, x², …, x^r)) = 0. Similarly D(gx², F(x², …, x^r, x¹)) = 0, …, D(gx^r, F(x^r, x¹, …, x^r−1)) = 0, which implies that gx¹ ∈ F(x¹, x², …, x^r), …, gx^r ∈ F(x^r, x¹, …, x^r−1), that is, ( x ¹ , x ² , …, x^r ) is an r −tupled coincidence point of F and g . Suppose now that ( a ) holds. Assume that for some ( x ¹ , x ² , …, x^r ) ∈ C { F, g }, Since g is continuous at y ¹ , y ² , …, y^r , we have, by (2.11), that y ¹ , y ² , …, y^r are fixed points of g , that is, As F and g are w −compatible, so for all i ≥ 1, By using (2.1) and (2.13), we obtain D(gⁱx¹, F(y¹, y², …, y^r)) ≤ H(F(gⁱ⁻¹x¹, gⁱ⁻¹x², …, gⁱ⁻¹x^r), F(y¹, y², …, y^r)) ≤ φ [max {d(gⁱx¹, gy¹), d(gⁱx², gy²), …, d(gⁱx^r, gy^r)}] + ψ [M{gⁱ⁻¹x¹, gⁱ⁻¹x², …, gⁱ⁻¹x^r, y¹, y², …, y^r}]. On taking limit as i → ∞ in the above inequality, by using (2.11), (2.12), ( A ), ( i_ψ ), ( ii_ψ ) and ( iii_φ ), we get D(gy¹, F(y¹, y²,…, y^r)) ≤ φ(t) + 0 = 0 + 0 = 0, which implies that D(gy¹, F(y¹, y²,…, y^r)) = 0. Similarly D(gy², F(y²,…, y^r, y¹)) = 0,…, D(gy^r, F(y^r, y¹,…, y^r−1)) = 0. Thus Thus, by (2.12) and (2.14), we get y¹ = gy¹ ∈ F(y¹, y²,…, y^r), …, y^r = gy^r ∈ F(y^r, y¹,…, y^r−1), that is, ( y ¹ , y ² ,…, y^r ) is a common r −tupled fixed point of F and g . Suppose now that ( b ) holds. Assume that for some ( x ¹ , x ² ,…, x^r ) ∈ C { F, g }, g is F −weakly commuting, that is, g ² x ¹ ∈ F ( gx ¹ , gx ² ,…, gx^r ), g ² x ² ∈ F ( gx ² , …, gx^r , gx ¹ ),…, g ² x^r ∈ F ( gx^r , gx ¹ , …, gx ^r−1 ) and g ² x ¹ = gx ¹ , g ² x ² = gx ² ,…, g ² x^r = gx^r . Thus gx ¹ = g ² x ¹ ∈ F ( gx ¹ , gx ² ,…, gx^r ), gx ² = g ² x ² ∈ F ( gx ² ,…, gx^r , gx ¹ ),…, gx^r = g ² x^r ∈ F ( gx^r , gx ¹ ,…, gx ^r−1 ), that is, ( gx ¹ , gx ² ,…, gx^r ) is a common r −tupled fixed point of F and g . Suppose now that ( c ) holds. Assume that for some ( x ¹ , x ² ,…, x^r ) ∈ C { F, g } and for some y ¹ , y ² ,…, y^r ∈ X , lim _i→∞   gⁱy ¹ = x ¹ , lim _i→∞   gⁱy ² = x ² ,…, lim _i→∞   gⁱy^r = x^r . Since g is continuous at x ¹ , x ² ,…, x^r . We have that x ¹ , x ² ,…, x^r are fixed points of g , that is, gx ¹ = x ¹ , gx ² = x ² ,…, gx^r = x^r . Since ( x ¹ , x ² ,…, x^r ) ∈ C { F, g }, therefore, we obtain x ¹ = gx ¹ ∈ F ( x ¹ , x ² ,…, x^r ), x ² = gx ² ∈ F ( x ² ,…, x^r , x ¹ ),…, x^r = gx^r ∈ F ( x^r , x ¹ ,…, x ^r−1 ), that is, ( x ¹ , x ² ,…, x^r ) is a common r −tupled fixed point of F and g . Finally, suppose that ( d ) holds. Let g ( C { F, g }) = {( x ¹ , x ¹ ,…, x ¹ )}. Then { x ¹ } = { gx ¹ } = F ( x ¹ , x ¹ ,…, x ¹ ). Hence ( x ¹ , x ¹ ,…, x ¹ ) is a common r −tupled fixed point of F and g . Example 2.1. Suppose that X = [0; 1], equipped with the metric d : X × X → [0, +∞) defined as d ( x, y ) = max{ x, y } and d ( x, x ) = 0 for all x, y ∈ X . Let F : X^r → CB ( X ) be defined as and g : X → X be defined as g(x) = x², for all x ∈ X. Define φ : [0, +∞) → [0, +∞) by and ψ : [0, +∞) → [0, +∞) by Now, for all x ¹ , x ² , …, x^r , y ¹ , y ² , …, y^r ∈ X with x ¹ , x ² ,…, x^r , y ¹ , y ² …, y^r ∈ [0, 1). But If ( x ¹ ) ² + ( x ² ) ² + … + ( x^r ) ² < ( y ¹ ) ² + ( y ² ) ² + … + ( y^r ) ² , then Similarly, we obtain the same result for ( y ¹ ) ² + ( y ² ) ² + … + ( y^r ) ² < ( x ¹ ) ² + ( x ² ) ² + … + ( x^r ) ² . Thus the contractive condition (2.1) is satisfied for all x ¹ , x ² , …, x^r , y ¹ , y ² , …, y^r ∈ X with x ¹ , x ² , …, x^r , y ¹ , y ² , …, y^r ∈ [0; 1). Again, for all x ¹ , x ² , …, x^r , y ¹ , y ² , …, y^r ∈ X with x ¹ , x ² , …, x^r ∈ [0; 1) and y ¹ , y ² , …, y^r = 1, we have Thus the contractive condition (2.1) is satisfied for all x ¹ , x ² , …, x^r , y ¹ , y ² , …, y^r ∈ X with x ¹ , x ² , …, x^r ∈ [0, 1) and y ¹ , y ² , …, y^r = 1. Similarly, we can see that the contractive condition (2.1) is satisfied for all x ¹ , x ² , …, x^r , y ¹ , y ² , …, y^r ∈ X with x ¹ , x ² , …, x^r , y ¹ , y ² , …, y^r = 1. Hence, the hybrid pair { F, g } satisfy the contractive condition (2.1), for all x ¹ , x ² , …, x^r , y ¹ , y ² , …, y^r ∈ X . In addition, all the other conditions of Theorem 2.1 are satisfied and z = (0, 0, …, 0) is a common r −tupled fixed point of hybrid pair { F, g }. The function F : X^r → CB ( X ) involved in this example is not continuous on X^r . Corollary 2.2.   Let (X, d) be a metric space. Assume F : X^r → CB(X) and g : X → X be two mappings satisfying for all   x ¹ , x ² , …, x^r , y ¹ , y ² , …, y^r ∈ X, where φ ∈ Φ and ψ ∈ Ψ. Furthermore assume that F ( X^r ) ⊆ g(X) and g(X) is a complete subset of X. Then F and g have an r−tupled coincidence point. Moreover, F and g have a common r−tupled fixed point, if one of the following conditions holds: ( a ) F and g are w−compatible . lim _i→∞   gⁱx ¹ = y ¹ , lim _i→∞   gⁱx ² = y ² , …, lim _i→∞   gⁱx^r = y^r , for some ( x ¹ , x ² , …, x^r ) ∈ C { F, g } and for some y ¹ , y ² , …, y^r ∈ X and g is continuous at   y ¹ , y ² , …, y^r . ( b ) g is F−weakly commuting for some ( x ¹ , x ² , …, x^r ) ∈ C { F, g }, gx ¹ , gx ² , …, gx^r are fixed points of g, that is , g ² x ¹ = gx ¹ , g ² x ² = gx ² , …, g ² x^r = gx^r . ( c ) g is continuous at   x ¹ , x ² , …, x^r . lim _i→∞   gⁱy ¹ = x ¹ , lim _i→∞   gⁱy ² = x ² , …, lim _i→∞   gⁱy^r = x^r for some ( x ¹ , x ² , …, x^r ) ∈ C { F, g } and for some y ¹ , y ² , …, y^r ∈ X . ( d ) g ( C { F, g }) is a singleton subset of C { F, g }. Proof . It suffices to remark that Then, we apply Theorem 2.1, since φ is non-decreasing. If we put g = I (the identity mapping) in the Theorem 2.1, we get the following result: Corollary 2.3.   Let ( X, d ) be a complete metric space, F : X^r → CB ( X ) be a mapping satisfying H(F(x¹, x², …, x^r), F(y¹, y², …, y^r)) ≤ φ [max {d(x¹, y¹), …, d(x^r, y^r)}] + ψ [m(x¹, …, x^r, y¹, …, y^r)], for all x ¹ , x ² , …, x^r , y ¹ , y ² , …, y^r ∈ X, where φ ∈ Φ and ψ ∈ Ψ. Then F has an r−tupled fixed point. If we put g = I (the identity mapping) in the Corollary 2.2, we get the following result: Corollary 2.4.   Let ( X, d ) be a complete metric space, F : X^r → CB ( X ) be a mapping satisfying for all x ¹ , x ² , …, x^r , y ¹ , y ² , …, y^r ∈ X, where φ ∈ Φ and ψ ∈ Ψ. Then F has an r−tupled fixed point . If we put ψ ( t ) = 0 in Theorem 2.1, we get the following result: Corollary 2.5.   Let ( X, d ) be a metric space. Assume F : X^r → CB ( X ) and g : X → X be two mappings satisfying H(F(x¹, x², …, x^r), F(y¹, y², …, y^r)) ≤ φ [max {d(gx¹, gy¹), d(gx², gy²), …, d(gx^r, gy^r)}], for all x ¹ , x ² , …, x^r , y ¹ , y ² , …, y^r ∈ X, where φ ∈ Φ. Furthermore assume that F ( X^r ) ⊆ g ( X ) and g ( X ) is a complete subset of X. Then F and g have an r−tupled coincidence point. Moreover, F and g have a common r−tupled fixed point, if one of the following conditions holds: ( a ) F and g are w−compatible . lim _i→∞   gⁱx ¹ = y ¹ , lim _i→∞   gⁱx ² = y ² , …, lim _i→∞   gⁱx^r = y^r , for some ( x ¹ , x ² , …, x^r ) ∈ C { F, g } and for some y ¹ , y ² , …, y^r ∈ X and g is continuous at   y ¹ , y ² , …, y^r . ( b ) g is F−weakly commuting for some ( x ¹ , x ² , …, x^r ) ∈ C { F, g }, gx ¹ , gx ² , …, gx^r are fixed points of g, that is , g ² x ¹ = gx ¹ , g ² x ² = gx ² , …, g ² x^r = gx^r . ( c ) g is continuous at   x ¹ , x ² , …, x^r . lim _i→∞   gⁱy ¹ = x ¹ , lim _i→∞   gⁱy ² = x ² , …, lim _i→∞   gⁱy^r = x^r for some ( x ¹ , x ² , …, x^r ) ∈ C { F, g } and for some y ¹ , y ² , …, y^r ∈ X . ( d ) g ( C { F, g }) is a singleton subset of C { F, g }. If we put ψ ( t ) = 0 in Corollary 2.2, we get the following result: Corollary 2.6.   Let ( X, d ) be a metric space. Assume F : X^r → CB ( X ) and g : X → X be two mappings satisfying for all x ¹ , x ² , …, x^r , y ¹ , y ² , …, y^r ∈ X, where φ ∈ Φ. Furthermore assume that F ( X^r ) ⊆ g ( X ) and g ( X ) is a complete subset of X : Then F and g have an r−tupled coincidence point. Moreover, F and g have a common r−tupled fixed point, if one of the following conditions holds: ( a ) F and g are w−compatible . lim _i→∞   gⁱx ¹ = y ¹ , lim _i→∞   gⁱx ² = y ² , …, lim _i→∞   gⁱx^r = y^r , for some ( x ¹ , x ² , …, x^r ) ∈ C { F, g } and for some y ¹ , y ² , …, y^r ∈ X and g is continuous at   y ¹ , y ² , …, y^r . ( b ) g is F−weakly commuting for some ( x ¹ , x ² , …, x^r ) ∈ C { F, g }, gx ¹ , gx ² , …, gx^r are fixed points of g, that is , g ² x ¹ = gx ¹ , g ² x ² = gx ² , …, g ² x^r = gx^r . ( c ) g is continuous at   x ¹ , x ² , …, x^r . lim _i→∞   gⁱy ¹ = x ¹ , lim _i→∞   gⁱy ² = x ² , …, lim _i→∞   gⁱy^r = x^r for some ( x ¹ , x ² , …, x^r ) ∈ C { F, g } and for some y ¹ , y ² , …, y^r ∈ X . ( d ) g ( C { F, g }) is a singleton subset of C { F, g }. If we put g = I (the identity mapping) in the Corollary 2.5, we get the following result: Corollary 2.7.   Let ( X, d ) be a complete metric space, F : X^r → CB ( X ) be a mapping satisfying H(F(x¹, x², …, x^r), F(y¹, y², …, y^r)) ≤ φ [max {d(x¹, y¹), d(x², y²), …, d(x^r, y^r)}], for all x ¹ , x ² , …, x^r , y ¹ , y ² , …, y^r ∈ X, where φ ∈ Φ. Then F has an r−tupled fixed point. If we put g = I (the identity mapping) in the Corollary 2.6, we get the following result: Corollary 2.8.   Let ( X, d ) be a complete metric space, F : X^r → CB ( X ) be a mapping satisfying for all x ¹ , x ² , …, x^r , y ¹ , y ² , …, y^r ∈ X, where φ ∈ Φ. Then F has an r−tupled fixed point. If we put φ ( t ) = kt where 0 < k < 1 in Corollary 2.5, we get the following result: Corollary 2.9.   Let ( X, d ) be a metric space. Assume F : X^r → CB ( X ) and g : X → X be two mappings satisfying H(F(x¹, x², …, x^r), F(y¹, y², …, y^r)) ≤ k max {d(gx¹, gy¹), d(gx², gy²), …, d(gx^r, gy^r)}, for all x ¹ , x ² , …, x^r , y ¹ , y ² , …, y^r ∈ X, where 0 < k < 1. Furthermore assume that F ( Xr ) ⊆ g ( X ) and g ( X ) is a complete subset of X . Then F and g have an r−tupled coincidence point. Moreover, F and g have a common r−tupled fixed point, if one of the following conditions holds: ( a ) F and g are w−compatible . lim _i→∞   gⁱx ¹ = y ¹ , lim _i→∞   gⁱx ² = y ² , …, lim _i→∞   gⁱx^r = y^r , for some ( x ¹ , x ² , …, x^r ) ∈ C { F, g } and for some y ¹ , y ² , …, y^r ∈ X and g is continuous at   y ¹ , y ² , …, y^r . ( b ) g is F−weakly commuting for some ( x ¹ , x ² , …, x^r ) ∈ C { F, g }, gx ¹ , gx ² , …, gx^r are fixed points of g, that is , g ² x ¹ = gx ¹ , g ² x ² = gx ² , …, g ² x^r = gx^r . ( c ) g is continuous at   x ¹ , x ² , …, x^r . lim _i→∞   gⁱy ¹ = x ¹ , lim _i→∞   gⁱy ² = x ² , …, lim _i→∞   gⁱy^r = x^r for some ( x ¹ , x ² , …, x^r ) ∈ C { F, g } and for some y ¹ , y ² , …, y^r ∈ X . ( d ) g ( C { F, g }) is a singleton subset of C { F, g }. If we put φ ( t ) = kt where 0 < k < 1 in Corollary 2.6, we get the following result: Corollary 2.10.   Let ( X, d ) be a metric space. Assume F : X^r → CB ( X ) and g : X → X be two mappings satisfying for all x ¹ , x ² , …, x^r , y ¹ , y ² , …, y^r ∈ X, where 0 < k < 1. Furthermore assume that F ( X^r ) ⊆ g ( X ) and g ( X ) is a complete subset of X . Then F and g have an r−tupled coincidence point. Moreover, F and g have a common r−tupled fixed point, if one of the following conditions holds: ( a ) F and g are w−compatible . lim _i→∞   gⁱx ¹ = y ¹ , lim _i→∞   gⁱx ² = y ² , …, lim _i→∞   gⁱx^r = y^r , for some ( x ¹ , x ² , …, x^r ) ∈ C { F, g } and for some y ¹ , y ² , …, y^r ∈ X and g is continuous at   y ¹ , y ² , …, y^r . ( b ) g is F−weakly commuting for some ( x ¹ , x ² , …, x^r ) ∈ C { F, g }, gx ¹ , gx ² , …, gx^r are fixed points of g, that is , g ² x ¹ = gx ¹ , g ² x ² = gx ² , …, g ² x^r = gx^r . ( c ) g is continuous at   x ¹ , x ² , …, x^r . lim _i→∞   gⁱy ¹ = x ¹ , lim _i→∞   gⁱy ² = x ² , …, lim _i→∞   gⁱy^r = x^r for some ( x ¹ , x ² , …, x^r ) ∈ C { F, g } and for some y ¹ , y ² , …, y^r ∈ X . ( d ) g ( C { F, g }) is a singleton subset of C { F, g }. If we put g = I (the identity mapping) in the Corollary 2.9, we get the following result: Corollary 2.11.   Let ( X, d ) be a complete metric space, F : X^r → CB ( X ) be a mapping satisfying H(F(x¹, x², …, x^r), F(y¹, y², …, y^r)) ≤ k max {d(x¹, y¹), d(x², y²), …, d(x^r, y^r)}, for all x ¹ , x ² , …, x^r , y ¹ , y ² , …, y^r ∈ X, where 0 < k < 1. Then F has an r−tupled fixed point. If we put g = I (the identity mapping) in the Corollary 2.10, we get the following result: Corollary 2.12.   Let ( X, d ) be a complete metric space, F : X^r → CB ( X ) be a mapping satisfying for all x ¹ , x ² , …, x^r , y ¹ , y ² , …, y^r ∈ X, where 0 < k < 1. Then F has an r−tupled fixed point.