Finality of court judgments must be respected, and subsequent claims cannot disrupt established property rights confirmed by earlier judicial decisions.

ORDER :

(P.B. BALAJI, J.)

This Writ petition has been filed challenging the order of the third respondent in Pa.Mu.A1/8955/2023 and to consequently direct the respondents 1 to 4 herein to mutate the patta, in line with the judgment and decree of the Sub Court, Devakkottai, in A.S.No.58 of 1968 dated 24.12.1969, which subsequently came to be confirmed by this Court in S.A.No.725 of 1970 dated 08.09.1972.

2. I have heard Mr.S.Manikandan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr.S.Kameswaran, learned Government Advocate for the respondents 1 to 4 and Mr.C.Sundaravadivel, learned counsel for the fifth respondent.

3. The case of the petitioner is that the property comprised in S.No.55/1, measuring 1.91 Acre in Amaravathipudur Village, Karaikudi Taluk, Sivagangai District, besides other properties belonged to his father, Late.Nachiappan Ambalam, vide registered sale deeds dated 13.11.1951 and 28.10.1953, registered as document Nos.2878/1951 and 276/1953 respectively and from the date of purchase, he was in possession and enjoyment of the property. While so, the said property in S.No.55/1 was mutated wrongly including the name of one Chinna Rakkappan Ambalam as a joint owner. Challenging the joint patta, the petitioner's father filed a suit in O.S.No.372 of 1966 before the District Munsif, Devakkottai, against one Ramasamy Ambalam, S/o.Chinna Rakkappan, as the said Chinna Rakkappan passed away at that relevant point of time. The trial Court dismissed the suit. However, on appeal in A.S.No.58 of 1968, the Sub Court, Devakkottai, allowed the appeal filed by the petitioner's father, as against which, the said Ramasamy Ambalam filed a second appeal in S.A.No.725 of 1970 and this Court confirmed the judgment of the first Appellate Court and dismissed the second appeal. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner's title has been confirmed and the petitioner's father was having the right to the entire extent of 1.91 Acre in S.No.55/1 and the judgment having become final, no rights could have been claimed by the defendant / Ramasamy Ambalam.

4. It is the further case of the petitioner that during the life time of his father, viz., Nachiappan Ambalam, he conveyed an extent of 95 ½ cents on the Eastern half to his elder son Subbaiah and his wife Vallikannu, in and by registered sale deed dated 07.12.1979, in document No.1528/1979 and the remaining western half of 95 ½ cents was allotted to the petitioner and the petitioner is claiming to be an enjoyment of the same.

5. The grievance of the petitioner is that taking advantage of the joint patta including the name of Chinna Rakkappan, the husband of the fifth respondent claimed a right based on the alleged relinquishment deed said to have been executed by Chinna Rakkappan and got settlement deed dated 09.06.2021, which was registered in favour of the fifth respondent and based on the same, the fifth respondent has mutated the revenue records in her name. The learned counsel would therefore submit that when the competent civil Courts have already declared the right of the petitioner, the documents executed behind the back of the petitioner would be of no avail and would not bind the petitioner. However, the learned counsel would submit that despite these admitted facts, the third respondent has virtually sat on appeal over the judgment and decree of this Court in Second Appeal and proceeded to pass the impugned order, confirming the mutation of patta in the name of the fifth respondent.

6. The learned Government Advocate, Mr.S.Kameswaran, would submit that the third respondent called for the records from the Village Administrative Officer and having found that the revenue records mutated continuously in the names of the Nachiappan Ambalam and Chinna Rakkapan and the petitioner never took steps from 1972 to correct the revenue records and when the fifth respondent claimed right and also filed a suit in O.S.No.165 of 2024 before the Sub Court, Devako