ORDER :

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner owns and is in possession of the lands in old S.F.No.132A/1 new R.S.No.864, now subdivided as R.S.No.864/1 with an extent of p.a. 0.371/2 situated at Perundurai village. This property was purchased by her family through a registered sale deed dated 05.07.2004 from one S.Palanisamy. It's adjacent land owners Selvan and Devimalar sold an extent of p.a.0.25 vide a registered sale deed dated 20.12.2012. Initially this property was allotted to 4th respondent P.C. Ramasamy in a partition deed. He executed a power of attorney deed dated 16.10.2002 in favour of one Nagarajan. Nagarajan sold the property through a registered sale deed dated 05.07.2004 an extent of p.a.1.00 to S. Palanisamy, the vendor of the petitioner. The vendor sold the property to Selvan, Devimalar and K.P. Krishnasamy and his daughter and in favour of the petitioner through registered sale deeds. Petitioner along with others are jointly enjoying one acre of land with specific boundaries. 4th respondent filed a suit in O.S.No.192 of 2007 before the Sub Court, Erode challenging the sale deed dated 05.07.2004 in favour of S. Palanisamy. This suit was transferred to the Sub Court, Perundurai and renumbered as O.S.No.134 of 2009. This suit was dismissed. Appeal filed by 4th respondent in A.S. No. 23 of 2013 was allowed. Selvan and Devimalar filed Second Appeal in S.A.No.647 of 2014 and other purchasers filed S.A.No.912 of 2014. Both the appeals were tried jointly and this Court set aside the judgment in A.S.No.23 of 2013 and affirmed the judgment and decree of the trial court. 4th respondent filed SLP Nos.18148 - 18149 of 2022 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. That was also dismissed on 20.10.2022. The judgment and decree in O.S.No.134 of 2009 has become final and it binds on all the parties to the lis. However, 4th respondent is causing hindrance in the occupation of the petitioner in respect of the property purchased by her. On the complaint dated 02.11.2022, CSR No.518 of 2022 was assigned, but no action was taken. Petitioner gave a representation dated 07.11.2022. Even thereafter, there was no action taken. Therefore this petition.

2. Learned counsel for the 4th respondent submitted that this petition is not maintainable both on facts and law. Neither the petitioner nor the vendors had never been put in possession of the subject property at any point of time. 4th respondent never intended to sell the property to anyone. The power of attorney deed and the sale agreement executed in connection with the loan transaction were misused by his power agent and the sale deed came to be executed. 4th respondent produced many documents to show that the possession remains only with the 4th respondent and no possession was handed over to the alleged purchasers, but the trial court had not considered the evidence properly. When the 4th respondent took up a specific plea that the possession was not handed over, the opposite party had not raised a counter claim for possession. The petitioner is a pendent lite purchaser during the pendency of the proceedings. Though the litigation is pending from 2007, documents had been created even during the pendency of the proceedings. Even now, petitioner is trying to take forcible possession of the property by damaging the property with the help of machineries and rowdy elements. Some photographs are also filed in support of this claim. Therefore, the petitioner or for that matter the alleged purchasers from the alleged power of attorney of the 4th respondent cannot claim any right. Review Application is filed against the judgment in the Second Appeal. He further relied on the following judgments for the preposition that police power cannot be misused in a civil dispute between the parties, especially with regard to the fixing of boundary or fencing the boundary.

(i) MANU/TN/6217/2021 (S. Srinivasan and others ..vs.. Gurusamy and others), wherein it is observed as follows:-