Mrs. D. Samudhiradevi and Mr. G. Sugumar, are the plaintiff and defendant respectively in the suit in O.S.No.20 of 2005, filed for a direction to the defendant, to execute a sale deed, in favour of the plaintiff, in respect of the suit property, as per the agreement of sale, dated 03.10.2002, and to register the same, on receipt of the balance of sale amount of Rs.5,00,000/- and in case, if the defendant fails to do so, the Court shall execute a valid sale deed, and to register the same in favour of the plaintiff, as specific performance of the contract and consequently, to direct the defendant, to deliver possession of the suit property to the plaintiff, in entirety or in the alternative relief, to direct the defendant (second respondent) to pay a sum of Rs.4,32,000/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum.

2. After filing the written statement, the defendant remained ex parte. Thereafter, upon hearing the arguments of the plaintiff and perusing the documents, the learned Principal District Judge, Nagapattinam, by judgment and decree, dated 05.07.2007, has passed the following orders:

"(1) That the plaintiff do deposit in the Court within two months from the date of balance of sale consideration of Rs.5,00,000/-.

(2) That the defendant within a month from the date of deposit of balance of sale deed, as stated above to execute a sale deed in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the suit property described hereunder.

(3) That on the failure of the defendant to execute the sale deed as stated above, this Court to execute the sale deed on his behalf and get it registered.

(4) That the defendant to pay to plaintiff a sum of Rs.78910/- towards cost of the suit."

3. Execution Petition in E.P.No.4 of 2008 has been filed by the Decree Holder. As the defendant failed to execute the sale agreement, the Court below has executed the sale deed on 13.10.2009. Thereafter, Mr.G.Kumar, brother of the defendant, has filed E.A.No.5 of 2011 in E.P.No.4 of 2008, to recall the warrant made in E.P.No.4 of 2008 in O.S.No.20 of 2005. Counter affidavit has been filed by the decree holder. Thereafter, E.A.No.6 of 2012, has been filed by him under Order 21 Rules 97, 98, 101 r/w. 151 CPC, contending inter alia that he has a right, title and interest over the suit property and consequently, to hold that the ex parte decree, dated 05.07.2007 and the subsequent execution of sale deed, dated 13.10.2009, as null and void, and not binding on him.

4. Facts leading to the appeal are as follows: The appellant and the second respondent are brothers and sons of late N.Gnanasekaran. The said N.Gnanasekaran along with his younger brother, Mr.N.Sait and Mother, Mrs.Thailammai, have divided the ancestral family properties, subsequent to the demise of their father, Natesa Chettiar and as per the customary practice, as between the legal heirs of Natesa Chettiar, a document, dated 28.07.1990, has been executed, under the name and style of a partition agreement, evidencing the previous partition that took place between them. Pursuant to the partition, Mr.G.Kumar, the appellant herein, was allotted 'B' Schedule properties, which constitute several shop buildings, lodges, complex, Natesh theatre, agricultural lands and other moveable and immovable properties. The income derived out of the ancestral properties, allotted towards the share of N.Gnanasekaran, was enormous. After the separation of the status between the two brothers, N.Gnanasekaran and N.Sait, the former along with his sons and daughters, continued to possess and enjoy the properties obtained by him, in the partition, as joint family ancestral properties of his branch and maintained all the properties, as the head of the family. He died on 11.07.1997.

5. The appellant has further submitted that from out of the income derived from the ancestral properties, his father, Late N.Gnanasekaran, has purchased a vacant site, subject matter of the suit and constructed a storeyed R.C.C. building for the bene