1. The first defendant in O.S.No.546 of 1994, and the obstructor are the appellants herein.

2. The respondent filed the above suit against the first appellant and Sub Registrar, Tiruvallur, for mandatory injunction directing the first appellant to handover vacant possession of plaint 'A' schedule property and for permanent injunction, restraining the Sub Registrar/ Tiruvallur, the second appellant from registering the plaint 'B' property in favour of any third party. That suit was decreed on 13.12.2002.

3. Thereafter, the respondent-decree holder filed execution petition in E.P.No.50 of 2003, to execute the decree and at that time, the second appellant caused obstruction in executing the decree and claimed title over the suit property. Therefore, the respondent-decree holder filed E.A.No.605 of 2004, under Order 21, Rule 97 of C.P.C., to remove the obstructor viz., the second appellant and that application in E.P.No.605 of 2004, was dismissed and consequently E.P.No.50 of 2003, was also dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, the respondent-decree holder filed an appeal in C.M.A.No.24 of 2008, against the dismissal of E.A.No.605 of 2004 and that appeal was allowed and against the same, this C.M.S.A. was filed by the appellants.

4. It is contented by Mr.P.Srinivasan, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants that the respondent-decree holder has no right to the suit property and even according to the respondent-decree holder, the property originally belonged to one Terasa and the said Terasa was the owner of 4 cents of land and under Ex.R1, viz., the sale deed dated 17.11.1976, she sold 2 > cents of land, out of the total extent of 4 cents situate in S.No.509B/10B to the appellants and therefore, she was having remaining extent of 1 < cents of land in the said survey number. But the respondent/plaintiff, the purchaser in title, purported to have purchased 3 > cents of land, out of 4 cents of the property under a sale deed dated 27.1.1977 from Terasa and after the sale of 2 > cents in favour of the first appellant, the said Terasa, cannot give a valid title in respect of 3 > cents, as she was the owner of only 1 < cents. The respondent/ plaintiff's vendor had purchased 3 > cents of land situate in S.No.509B/10B, from Terasa, under the document dated 27.01.1977 and the purchaser Dakshayini, sold the same under a Registered sale deed dated 19.04.1995 in favour of one Devi and from the said Devi, the respondent/plaintiff purchased the property under the Registered sale deed dated 30.07.1987 and having regard to the earlier sale deed executed by Terasa, in favour of the first appellant, the respondent/plaintiff cannot claim title to the suit property.

5. Mr.P.Srinivasan, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that though the suit was decreed ex parte an application to set aside the ex parte decree was filed along with an application to condone the delay and that was dismissed and the same was also confirmed in Revision Petition filed before this Court. Thereafter, the first appellant filed an appeal against the ex parte decree along with an application in I.A.No.119 of 2004, to condone the delay and in that application, as per the consent given by the respondent's Counsel, the delay was condoned on payment of costs and the cost was also deposited into the Court.

6. Thereafter, the Court below, suo motu re-opened the application filed in I.A.No.119 of 2004, by the first appellant to condone the delay in filing the appeal and dismissed the same and against the same, the first appellant filed a revision petition in C.R.P.NPD.No.1953 of 2009 before this Court and therefore, the Court below erred in suo motu re-opening the application filed in I.A.No.119 of 2004, after the same was allowed and the delay was condoned. When the appeal filed against the ex parte decree passed in O.S.No.546 of 1994, the Court below ought not to have allowed the application filed by the respondent and ordered for removal of the