The court reaffirmed the validity of judicial decisions and the presumption of regularity in judicial acts, underlining that a decree, once established, remains binding unless proven fraudulent by sufficient evidence.

JUDGMENT :

The Second Appeal has been preferred by the appellants /plaintiffs challenging the judgment of the III Additional District Judge, Puducherry dated 06.09.2010 in A.S. No. 115 of 2006 confirming the judgment of the I Additional Sub Judge, Pondicherry dated 21.06.1996 in O.S. No. 291 of 1995.

2. The short facts pleaded by the plaintiffs in the plaint are as under :

2.1. The suit schedule properties originally belonged to one Thambusamy, who is the father of the plaintiffs, by virtue of a registered sale-deed dated 26.07.1962. The sale consideration was paid by Thambusamy from the sale proceeds he had in his hands by selling his other lands. Thambusamy was working as Bureau Militarie at Pondicherry from the year 1921 and he got retired in the year 1937. He was a pensionary till his death and post retirement, he was working as Head Watchman in Swedeshi Cotton Mill, Pondicherry from the year 1938 to 1949. The plaintiffs’ mother was also working in Anglo French Textile, Pondicherry. The plaintiffs' father was also working in the office of Percepeture Bureau from the year 1950 to 1963 and he was in enjoyment of the properties purchased by him till his death. One of the son of the Thambusamy, viz., Cadirone Pichamouthou, died on 20.07.1976 leaving behind his wife, Cadirone Marie Jeaqueline, who is the respondent herein, and his children.

2.2. The defendant filed a suit in O.S. No. 269 of 1978 on the file of the II Additional Sub Judge at Pondicherry for declaring that the sale-deeds dated 07.01.1954, 17.07.1957, 08.01.1958 and 26.07.1962 in the name of Thambusamy, which includes the above suit properties, were benamis and it was actually purchased by her husband Cadirone Pichamouthou.

2.3. Thambusamy filed written-statement by denying the allegations. These plaintiffs were not added as parties to the above suit.

2.4. During the pendency of the suit, the plaintiffs' father Thambusamy fell sick and got bed ridden and he was affected with paralysis. Taking undue advantage of the circumstances, the defendant misrepresented and obtained thumb impression of Thambusamy when he was in a fit state of mind and misrepresented that he had to submit to decree.

2.5. On playing fraud upon the Court, a judgment was obtained in O.S. No. 269 of 1978. The date of decree was on 23.06.1980. The above decree will not bind the interest of plaintiffs in the suit properties. Hence, the plaintiffs have filed a suit seeking declaration 1st that the plaintiffs are the absolute owners of the item of the suit schedule property as per Will dated 03.07.1978 and pass a 2nd preliminary decree for partition of the item of the suit schedule 3/4th property into four (4) equal shares and allot share to the plaintiffs and declare that the judgment and decree dated 23.06.1980 passed by the II Additional Sub Judge, Pondicherry in O.S. No. 269 of 1978 is void and it will not bind the plaintiffs and it 4th is inoperative in respect of item of suit property in O.S. No. 269 of 1978.

3. The brief averments in the written statement of the defendant are as under:

3.1. The deceased Thambusamy was the father-in-law of the defendant. The defendant's husband Cadirone Pichamouthou was employed in French Military Service and he was sending huge amounts to his father to purchase the properties. So various properties were purchased in the name of Thambusamy by using the money sent by the defendant’s husband on 17.07.1951, 07.01.1964, 08.01.1958 and 26.06.1962. After r