Madras High Court
Sarojini vs R.Raguram on 28 April, 2022
C.M.P.(MD)No.8664 of 2019
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 28.04.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR
C.M.P.(MD)No.8664 of 2019
in
A.S(MD)SR.No.66426 of 2019
1.Sarojini
2.Vijayasingh ... Petitioners / Appellants
Vs.
1.R.Raguram
2.R.Kandaleela ...Respondents / Respondents
Respondents are represented through their Power Agent
S.Murugesan
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article Order 41 Rule 3(A) of C.P.C., r/w
Section 5 of Limitation Act, praying to condone the delay of 454 days in
filing the above appeal suit against the decree and judgment in O.S.No.
72/2015, dated 22.03.2018 on the file of the III Additional District Judge,
Tirunelveli.
For Petitioner : Mr.D.Saravanan
For Respondents : Mr.R.Anand
1/4
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.P.(MD)No.8664 of 2019
ORDER
R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.
AND
N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.
The petitioner seeks condonation of delay of 454 days in filing
the appeal against the decree and judgment made in O.S.No.72 of 2015,
dated 22.03.2018.
2.The said decree is one for payment of money, which became due
because of the fact that the sale deed executed by the petitioners was found
to be a fraudulent one, as the petitioners did not have title to the property,
which was conveyed under the said sale deed. It was also found that the
petitioners had sold the said property as early as on 06.02.1986 in favour of
the third party. Despite having sold the property, suppressing the same,
they have sold the same property again to the respondents on 12.02.2014.
3.The reasons assigned for the long delay is that the first petitioner
is aged about 79 years and the second petitioner is aged about 85 years and
misled by certain land grabbing persons. It is also stated that because of
their old age, they could not file the appeal.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.P.(MD)No.8664 of 2019
4.Mr.R.Anand, learned counsel for the respondents would submit
that the reasons given for the delay cannot be considered to be satisfactory
reasons, in view of the fact that the very petitioners, who claim that they
could not file appeal because of their old age and immobility, had executed
a settlement deed in respect of another property, which was attached
pending suit in favour of their daughter on 07.12.2020.
5.It shows that the petitioners were vibrant active even on
07.12.2020 at the heights of Pandemic. Hence, we are unable to accept the
reasons assigned for the delay. This Civil Miscellaneous Petition, therefore,
is dismissed. Consequently, connected A.S(MD)SR.No.66426 of 2019 is
dismissed at the SR stage itself.
[R.S.M.,J.] & [N.S.K.,J.]
28.04.2022
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
Myr
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.P.(MD)No.8664 of 2019
R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.
AND
N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.
Myr
To
The III Additional District Judge,
Tirunelveli.
C.M.P.(MD)No.8664 of 2019
in
A.S(MD)SR.No.66426 of 2019
28.04.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
