A court can decide a suit on merits under Order 17, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure if the defendant fails to appear on the date fixed for hearing, even if the plaintiff's witnesses have been cross-examined by the defendant's counsel.

1. The case has had a chequered career.

.2. The first defendant in O.S. No. 278 of 1982 on the file of the District Munsif of Villupuram is the appellant in the second appeal. The first respondent herein filed the suit for declaration of title and possession on the following averments:

.The suit properties originally belonged to one Lakshmi Ammal. Her daughter-in-law was one Govindammal. Her brother was Gurusamy and Gurusamys son one Jagadev was married to one Dhanammal the first respondent was their daughter. Lakshmiammal executed a registered settlement deed under Ex.A-1 on 212. 1959 giving the properties to her daughter-in-law Govindammal to be enjoyed by her during her life time without powers of alienation and the grandchildren of Gurusamy were to take the suit properties absolutely after the life time of Govindammal. Govindammal sold away the suit first item to the appellant on 1. 1974 and bequeathed the second item to one Mannangatti Gounder, who in his turn sold that item to the second defendant in the suit one Ananthakrishnan. The first respondent was the sole surviving grandson of Lakshmiammals brother Gurusamy. As per the settlement deed the suit items were vested with the first respondent on the death of Govindammal two years prior to the suit. However, the appellant taking advantage of the sale deed, has not only taken possession of the first item, but also trespassed in the suit third item. The second defendant Ananthakrishnan had been in possession of the suit second item. The first respondent was entitled to recover possession of the suit properties with mesne profits. A notice was issued on 7. 1978 evoking a reply from the appellant on 27. 1978 containing false allegations. The suit therefore came to be filed.

3. The second respondent herein Ranganathan Gounder, was impleaded as the third defendant in the suit on the ground that he was in possession of the third item of the suit property. One Mannangatti was made the fourth defendant in the suit on the ground that the second defendant who claimed to have purchased the property from Mannangatti, contended that the sale by Mannangatti in his favour had not come into effect and that Mannangatti continued to be in possession. The third and the fourth defendants did not file any written statement and remained ex parte.

.4. The appellant resisted the suit by filing a written statement contending inter alia that he purchased suit first item for a valuable consideration of Rs. 6, 500 from Govindammal and had been in possession till the date of the suit, that he purchased suit third item about five years prior to the suit, that the alleged settlement deed was not true and that Lakshmiammal had no title. His further case was that the suit properties belonged to Govindammal and had been dealt with by her till the knowledge of all others and in any event, Lakshmiammal even if she had any title, the same had been lost by virtue of adverse possession by Govindammal. The appellant further disputed the marriage between Jagadev and Dhanammal and contended that Dhanammal was actually married to one Muthukrishnan, who was alive even on the date of the suit.

5. The second defendant Ananthakrishnan filed a written statement conceding that a decree could be passed as prayed for. However, he contended that one Mannangatti Gounder represented that he was the owner of the suit second item and agreed to sell the property to the second defendant and also received the amount by executing a sale deed on 22. 1978 and within 15 days from the date of the sale deed dispute arose between the second defendant, the first respondent, and Mannangatti and the sale deed never came into effect. The suit property was in the possession of Mannangatti.

6. At the time of trial the defendants remained ex parte and an ex parte decree was passed against them and in favour of the plaintiff/first respondent. On appeal by the defendants, the suit was remanded for fresh disposal giving an