JUDGMENT :

1. Aggrieved over the judgment of the first Appellate Court, reversing the findings of the trial Court, the present second appeal is filed.

2. The parties are referred to as per their rank before the trial Court.

3. The brief facts, leading to file this Second Appeal, are as follows:-

It is the case of the plaintiff that the suit property shown as L1, L2, L7, L8 and F1 and G is in possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff and the second defendant. Originally the suit property and the north eastern side property was owned by one Subramania Pillai and he has mortgaged the said properties to one, Paripooranam Chettiar, who is the father of the plaintiffs, in the year 1951 under Ex.A1, dated 09.11.1951. Thereafter, the mortgaged properties were sold to the mortgagee, Paripooranam Chettiar, through sale deed Ex.A2 dated 22.05.1958. Though the sale deed indicated that the entire mortgaged properties were sold to the plaintiffs' father, Paripooranam Chettiar, however, the suit property was not included in the sale deed due to oversight. Since the dispute arose between them the said Paripooranam Chettiar filed O.S.No.49 of 1963 for declaration. In the above suit, a compromise decree was passed wherein the suit properties was declared in favour of the father of the plaintiffs. Ever since, the date of death of the father of the plaintiffs, his legalheirs had control over the properties and the suit property was in possession of the plaintiff and the second defendant. The alleged sale of the suit property in favour of the first defendant is not correct and O.S.No. 510 of 1970 was also filed against the defendant and his predecessors in title, wherein declaration and injunction was granted in favour of the plaintiffs' father. Hence the suit.

4. The first defendant denying the allegations in the plaint stated that the suit properties viz., L1, L2, L7, L8, F1 and G were originally owned by one Subramania Pillai and he has sold the same to the first defendant on 18.09.1961. Ever since the date of sale, the first defendant is in possession and cultivated the said portion shown as G, F1 and put up a latrine in L2 and has also perfected title by adverse possession. The said Paripooranam Chettiar has never enjoyed the suit property. The sale deed in favour of the plaintiffs' father did not convey the suit property. Earlier suit in O.S.No.510 of 1970 was not barred as res judicata and Paripooranam Chettiar was never in possession of the suit property. Therefore the legal heirs are also not entitled for possession of the suit property. Hence he disputed the plaintiffs' claim.

5. On the side of the plaintiff, P.W.1 and P.W.2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A9 were marked. On the side of the defendants, the second defendant was examined as and Exs.B1 to B5 were marked.

6. Based on the above pleadings, the trial Court has framed as many as 11 issues and after considering the entire documents, particularly previous judgments, granted the decree for permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiffs. The first Appellate Court reversed the findings of the trial Court only on the ground that the compromise decree in O.S.No.49 of 1963 was not registered. Aggrieved against the said findings that the plaintiffs did not derive any title, the present second appeal is filed.

7. While admitting the Second Appeal, the following substantial questions of law have been framed:-

a) Whether the first Appellate Court was correct in reversing the judgment and decree of the trial court in the face of the compromise decree in O.S.No.49/63 and O.S.No.510/70 marked as Exs.A3 and A4? And

b) Whether the suit filed by the plaintiff is barred by the principle of res judicata?

8. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant vehemently contended that the first Appellate Court has simply allowed the appeal by dismissing the suit only on the ground that the compromise decree requires registration as the same has not been registered, the plaintiffs are not entitled to the suit propert