Claims re-agitating settled property disputes are barred by res judicata, adhering to principles of finality in litigation.

JUDGMENT :

G. JAYACHANDRAN, J.

1. This Appeal Suit is directed against the order of the Court below dated 15.02.2022, passed in I.A. No. 107 of 2019 in O.S. No. 34 of 2019, on the file of the III Additional District Court, Kallakurichi, rejecting the plaint.

2. Plaint averments:

The suit for partition was filed by one Suresh, against Athiyappa Gounder and seven others, on the premise that the suit property was originally held by Kurumba Gounder Jahirdhar. On the advent of the Jahir Abolition Act, the State Government acquired the property by way of Government Order dated 05.01.1966. Subsequently, compensation was paid to Kurumba Gounder vide proceedings dated 25.06.1981.

3. Thereafter, under the Inam Settlement Scheme and after due enquiry, patta was issued in favour of Sengoda Gounder, the great grandfather of the plaintiff and Athiyappa Gounder, the first defendant. Joint Patta No. 146, dated 15.11.1977, was issued in the names of Sengoda Gounder and Athiyappa Gounder and the property was enjoyed by their respective branches without disturbance.

4. After the death of Sengoda Gounder on 22.11.1990, the plaintiff seeks partition by claiming that Sengoda Gounder is entitled to ½ share in the property covered under Patta No.146 and the remaining ½ share to Athiyappa Gounder. The suit was filed against Athiyappa Gounder, the co-pattadar and others, whom all the plaintiff presumed to have a claim over the property. The plaintiff restricts his claim to 1/12 share, stating that Sengoda Gounder had four children, one of whom was Selvaraj, who predeceased Sengoda Gounder. Selvaraj had a son by name Rathinam. The plaintiff is the son of Rathinam.

5. The plaintiff states that the first defendant, despite having only ½ share, sold the entire suit property to one Narayanan through a sale deed dated 22.01.1992. Narayanan, in turn, sold the property to the second defendant on 30.04.2001. The plaintiff further contends that the first defendant is claiming ownership over the entire suit property based on a sale deed of the year 1975. However, at that time, the property had already been taken over by the Government being a Jahir land and on the abolition of the Jahir, the suit land was declared as State property. The settlement proceedings had attained finality on 25.08.1976. Therefore, any sale deed allegedly executed and registered in 1975 is to be treated as non est in law.

6. Written Statement averment:

The second defendant, in his written statement, denied the plaintiff’s claims as being contrary to facts and law. He specifically denied that a joint patta was issued in favour of Sengoda Gounder and Athiyappa Gounder and also denied the date and manner of Sengoda Gounder’s death and succession.

7. The second defendant further denied the allegations of suppression of Government proceedings and false claims in O.S. No. 84 of 1996, filed by Narayanan against the third defendant and others. He asserted that the suit property originally belonged to Thangavel Gounder, Kuppammal and Vellaiyan. Athiyappa Gounder had purchased the property through sale deeds dated 30.06.1975 and 17.10.1975, registered as Document Nos. 2194, 2200, and 3084.

8. Since the purchase, Athiyappa Gounder had been in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the property. A patta was issued in his name. Later, Athiyappa Gounder executed a General Power of Attorney in favour of Sengoda Gounder, who was his father-in-law. However, since Sengoda Gounder acted against the interest of the principal, the Power of Attorney was revoked on 06.10.1986. Therefore, according to the second defendant, the great-grandfather of the plaintiff never had title over the property, except the limited authority conferred under the power of attorney for a short period.

9. Application to reject the plaint:

In the application to reject the