The appellate court must adhere to prior confirmed decrees regarding property ownership, and failure to do so may render its decisions invalid.

JUDGMENT :

P. DHANABAL, J.

1. The Second appeal has been preferred as against the decree and judgment passed by the III Additional District Judge, Puducherry in A.S. No.12 of 2012 wherein the 1^st respondent has preferred an Appeal as against the fair and decreetal judgment passed by the Execution Court in E.A. No.326 of 2008 in E.P. No.53 of 2008 in O.S. No.128 of 1992 dated 09.01.2012 and the said appeal was allowed. Aggrieved by the said decree and judgment, the present second appeal has been preferred by the appellants.

2. The appellants herein are the third parties to the proceedings. Originally the 1^st respondent herein has filed a Suit in O.S. No.128 of 1992 for Specific Performance of Contract. The said Suit was decreed in favour of the 1^st respondent herein and thereafter, she filed an execution petition in E.P. No.53 of 2008 and Sale Deed was executed by the Court on 05.03.2008 and thereafter, the 1^st respondent filed a petition in E.A. No.326 of 2008 for removing the obstruction under Order XXI Rule 97 of Code of Civil Procedure and the same was dismissed by the Execution Court. Aggrieved by the said order, an appeal in A.S. No.12 of 2012 was preferred by the 1^st respondent and the First Appellate Court allowed the appeal and ordered for removal of third party obstructors from the Suit property along with order of police aid and break open. Aggrieved by the said order, the present second appeal has been filed.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants would submit that the appellants purchased the property through a Sale Deed dated 23.01.2008 and they have been in possession and enjoyment of the property from the date of purchase. Originally, the said property belonged to one Lebrin Mouttousamy and the said Lebrin Mouttousamy had purchased the said property from one Philip @ Lazar Galiautets through a Sale Deed on 26.09.1953 and said Lebrin Mouttousamy settled his property to his daughter Rolin Mangalorin Anriette through a Settlement Deed dated 03.06.1969. In turn, the said Rolin Mangalorin Anriette sold the said property to one Aland Vinayagasamy through a Sale Deed dated 04.09.1971. The said Lebrin Mouttousamy filed a Suit in O.S. No.191 of 1981 for declaration that the settlement deed executed by him dated 03.06.1969 and the Sale Deed dated 04.09.1971 in favour of Aland Vinayagasamy as null and void. The said Suit was decreed on 12.04.1983. Thereafter, two separate appeals in A.S. No.130 and 131 of 1983 were filed by the said Aland Vinayagasamy and Rolin Mangalorin Anriette and the said appeals were allowed on 12.11.1983. Thereafter, the said Lebrin Mouttosamy filed a Second Appeal in S.A. No.415 of 1984. During the pendency of the said second appeal, the said Lebrin Mouttousamy died and his legal heirs i.e., wife and daughter were impleaded as parties. While so, on 31.03.1988, the wife of the Lebrin Mouttousamy sold the property to one Muthu. The said Muthu entered into an agreement for sale with one Indira Rajendran on 02.11.1988. Thereafter, the said second appeal in S.A. No.415 of 1984 was dismissed by confirming the judgment and decrees in A.S. No.130 and 131 of 1983 on 21.10.1991.

3.1. Thereafter, the said Indra Rajendran, who purchased the property from the wife of Lebrin Mouttousamy, during the pendency of the second appeal, filed a Suit in O.S. No.128 of 1992 for the Specific Performance of Contract as against the said Muthu and the same was decreed on 29.03.1996. On the date of said filing of the Suit, the property was already sold to Aland Vinayagasamy, but however he was not impleaded as party to the s