An ex-parte decree does not operate as res judicata unless the issue was heard and finally decided on merits. Furthermore, under the Transfer of Property Act and Registration Act, any transfer of immovable property valued at one hundred rupees or more is invalid without a registered instrument.

JUDGMENT

1.This Second Appeal has been preferred by the appellants/plaintiffs against the judgment and decree dated 25.10.2020 passed in A.S.No.13 of 2010 by the Principal Sub- Court, Vridhachalam, reversing the judgment and decree dated 21.12.2009 passed in O.S.No.299 of 2004 by the II Additional District Munsif Court, Vridhachalam.

2.Parties are referred to as per their litigative status and ranking before the trial Court.

3.Heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants/plaintiffs and the learned counsel for the respondents/defendants.

4.According to the appellants/plaintiffs, 'A' schedule property originally belonged to one Chidambaram Pillai from whom the 1^st plaintiff's father and the 2^nd plaintiff's husband Sollaimuthu Padayachi purchased on 06.08.1964. Sollaimuthu Padayachi had been in continuous possession and enjoyment of the purchased property. He died intestate 27 years before leaving behind the appellants/plaintiffs and daughters namely Kalaimani, Dhanalakshmi and Senthamilselvi, as his legal heirs. The said Kalaimani got married 30 years before and residing with her husband. Thereafter, the said Dhanalakshmi and Senthamilselvi died without any legal heirs. Patta was granted in favour of 2^nd plaintiff/Neelambal in respect of the 'A' schedule property in Patta No.647. The plaintiffs are in continuous possession and enjoyment of the 'A' schedule property for more than 10 years and they have prescribed title to the property by adverse possession.

5.The 1^st and 2^nd defendants purchased 0.38 cents situated on the South of 'A' schedule property through two sale deeds dated 20.08.1985 from Govindasamy each 0.19 cents respectively. The 1^st and 2^nd defendants have been in possession and enjoyment of the purchased property respectively from the date of sale. The defendants have admitted in their sale deed that the 'A' schedule property is situated on the North of their purchased property. Therefore, the defendants are estopped from denying the title of the plaintiffs to the 'A' schedule property. While so, the 1st defendant in the Tamil month of Chithirai 1999 encroached into a portion of the Northern side of 'A' schedule property which is shown as 'B' schedule property. The 1^st defendant had filed a suit in O.S.No.454 of 2000 against the appellants/plaintiffs contending that he is entitled to 3.04 acres in Survey No.456/3C and he is also entitled to 2.77 cents in the said survey number, and the said property was purchased by way of sale deed. The 1^st plaintiff has exchanged the 'B' schedule property in favour of the 1^st defendant and therefore, the 1^st defendant is entitled to the 'B' schedule property. The plaintiffs have not orally exchanged and sold the 'B' schedule property to the 1^st defendant. The plaintiffs were never in possession of the 0.38 cents situated on the South of 'A' schedule property. As the 1^st defendant upon the request of the plaintiffs refused to hand over the possession of 'B' schedule property, it necessitated the plaintiffs to file the suit. From 1999 onwards the 1^st defendant has been cultivating sugarcane in the 'B' schedule property and sent the same to Pennadam Sugar Mill and earned profits. Therefore, the mesne profits for Rs.10,000/- is also prayed for.

6.Per Contra, it was contented by the respondents/defendants that the appellants/plaintiffs have relinquished their right over the 'B' schedule property 30 years before. Though the father of the 1^st plaintiff, Sollaimuthu Padayachi purchased 1.38 cents in the