JUDGMENT :

This appeal has been filed by the 1st appellant (the sole plaintiff) in O.S.No.1237 of 2006. By the impugned judgment and decree dated 26.4.2012 the Appellate Court has allowed A.S.No.2 of 2012 filed by the 1st respondent (the sole defendant).

2. The 1st appellant (sole plaintiff) has since deceased during the pendency of this appeal. Hence, his interest is now represented by his other legal representatives in this appeal. The 1st respondent (the sole defendant) has also deceased during the pendency of this appeal. They are the son and the father.

3. The interest of the deceased 1st appellant (sole plaintiff) represented by his other legal representatives in this appeal. Similarly, the legal representatives of the 1st respondent though impleaded as the 3rd respondent by an order dated 28.01.2020 of this Court have not entered appearance. The 3rd respondent is not contesting this appeal.

4. For the sake of convenience, the ranks of the parties before the Trial Court are referred to avoid confusion. The 2nd respondent who got himself in this appeal by an order dated 26.9.2019. For the sake convenience, the 2nd respondent shall be also referred to as the buyer.

5. This appeal was filed by the deceased 1st appellant (the sole plaintiff in O.S.No.1237 of 2006) against the impugned judgment and decree dated 26.4.2012 in A.S.No.2 of 2012 passed by passed by the Appellate Court.

6. The said appeal was filed by the deceased 1st respondent (the sole defendant) before the First Appellate Court against the judgment and decree dated 17.11.2006 in O.S.No.1237 of 2006 of the Trial Court. The First Appellate Court has allowed the said appeal by way of remand.

7. The 2nd respondent is a purchaser of Item No.1 of the suit schedule property from the sole defendant. The 2nd respondent claims to have purchased Item No.1 of the suit schedule property from the sole defendant pursuant to an award dated 25.1.2008 in a Lok Adalat conducted by the Pondicherry Legal Services Authorities.

8. The deceased defendant had allegedly executed a sale deed dated 12.2.2008 in favour of the 2nd respondent to sell the suit schedule property. Later, a sale deed was registered for sale of Item No.1 of the suit schedule property in favour of the 2nd respondent pursuant to an award dated 25.1.2008 in a Lok Adalat conducted by the Pondicherry Legal Services Authorities.

9. The contest in this appeal is between the legal heirs of the deceased plaintiff and the 2nd respondent, the subsequent purchaser of item No.1 of the suit schedule property.

10. The Trial Court had earlier decreed O.S.No.1237 of 2006 filed by the plaintiff by its judgment and decree dated 17.11.2006 which has been reversed by the First Appellate Court.

11. O.S.No.1237 of 2006 was field before the 2nd Additional District Munsif Court at Pondicherry (Trial Court) to declare that the suit schedule properties were purchased from and out of the income derived from the sale of ancestral property pursuant to a partition deed dated 28.9.1954 and to restrain the deceased defendant from alienating and/or encumbering the suit schedule property and/or from disturbing the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property Item No.1 of the plaintiff in any manner.

12. The records of lower Court indicates that in the written statement, the deceased defendant had practically submitted to a consent decree by agreeing to the contention of the deceased plaintiff. The written statement merely consisted of 3 paragraph which read as under:-

“1. The defendant herein humbly submits before the Hon’ble Court that he is not having any serious objection in respect of the averments contained in the plaint in page Nos. 2 to 13 and as well as the documents filed by him which are detailed in page Nos.13 & 14 of the plaint.

2. The defendant further submits that he has no objection in granting the relief or according wit