M. Venugopal, J.

This L.P.A.No.33 of 2002 is filed by the appellant/6th respondent/5th defendant against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in A.S.No.959 of 1985 dated 26. 1998 praying to set aside the said judgment and decree in regard to the Item No.4 of the Plaint "B" Schedule Property purchased by the appellant herein as per sale deed Ex.B6 dated 212. 1980 from the first defendant.

.2. The 2nd and 3rd respondents herein (minors) represented by their mother and guardian have filed a suit as Plaintiffs in O.S.No.35 of 1981 on the file of the learned Sub Judge, Nagercoil praying for partition and separate possession of their 2/3rd share in "A" Schedule joint family properties and for declaring their title to an extent of 2/3rd share in "B" Schedule properties setting aside the sale deeds executed by their father, the first defendant in favour of defendants 2 to 5 and for recovery of the same with future mesne profits at the rate of Rs.988/-per annum from the date of suit till date of recovery.

3. The learned Sub Judge, Nagercoil after considering the available materials and evidence on record came to the conclusion that the plaintiffs are entitled to the relief of partition and separate possession of 2/3rd share in Plaint "A" Schedule properties and items 1, 3 and 4 in Plaint "B" Schedule properties and that the sale deeds executed by the first defendant in favour of defendants 3 to 5 are set aside in respect of 2/3rd share of the plaintiffs and relegated the mesne profits to be decided separately in final decree proceedings.

4. As against the judgment and decree of the learned Sub Judge, Nagercoil passed in O.S.No.35 of 1981 dated 06.08.1982 in A.S.No.769 and 959 of 1985 were filed by 4th defendant and 3rd defendant as Appellants before this Court and this Court dismissed A.S.No.769 of 1985 and allowed A.S.No.959 of 1985 and held that the 6th respondent / 5th defendant is not entitled to any relief in regard to 4th Item of "B" Schedule property purchased from the first defendant as per Ex.A.4-Sale Deed dated 212. 1980.

5. Aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in A.S.No.959 of 1985 dated 22.06.1998, the 5th defendant as Appellant has preferred the present L.P.A.No.33 of 2002.

6. According to the learned counsel for the appellant/5th defendant, the present appellant/5th defendant in law can assail the judgment and decree passed by the learned Sub Judge, Nagercoil in O.S.No.35 of 1981 dated 06.08.1982 even without filing any first appeal against the said judgment and contends that as per Order 41 Rule 33, the appellate Court is possessing the requisite power to pass any decree and to make suitable order.

7. It is the further contention of the appellant/5th defendant that the appellant has purchased the property as per Ex.B6, sale deed dated 212. 1980 from the first defendant for a sale consideration of Rs.8,200/-and therefore, the appellant/5th defendants interest is to be protected, since the said sale is valid and binding on respondents 2 and 3, the minors represented by their mother, Chanthragani.

8. A perusal of the Ex.B6, registered sale deed dated 212. 1980 indicates that the 5th defendant/appellant has purchased the Item 4 of the "B" Schedule property in the Plaint from the first defendant for a sale consideration of Rs.8,200/-. The said sale deed is a Public document and registration amounts to notice. The purpose of registration is to enable individuals to find out whether any particular piece on property, with which they may be concerned, has been made subject to some particular legal obligation. Moreover, the registration of a document will give solemnity of form and legal significance to the said document in registering the same.

.9. The learned counsel for the appellant relied on AIR 1963 SC 185 at special page 187 (V.T.S.Chandrasekhara V. Kulandaivelu) wherein it is observed as follows:

."Constitution of