Madras High Court
P.Karunambal vs Karuchelliah Konar (Died) on 26 July, 2022
CMP(MD).No.3899 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Dated : 26.07.2022
Coram
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice C.V.KARTHIKEYAN
C.M.P.(MD).No.3899 of 2021 in
Rev.Aplc(MD).SR.No.4792 of 2021
Soundarammal (Died)
1.P.Karunambal
2.P.Soundarapandian
3.P.Ganam
4.P.Ganesan
Suppammal (Died)
Saradammbal (Died)
5.Shanmugam
6.Jeyalakshmi
7.Ravichandran
8.Krishnaveni
Sornavalli (Died)
9.Jeyaraman
10.Rajalakshmi ...Petitioners
[Cause title amendment accepted vide Court order
dated 18.03.2021 in CMP(MD).No.1696/21 by CVKJ]
1/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMP(MD).No.3899 of 2021
Vs.
1.KaruChelliah Konar (Died)
2.Pathinettampadi
3.Vansanthi
4.Parthasarathy
5.Veni
6.Kumar
7.Dhanalakshmi
8.Sampath
9.Chinnakutti
10.Muniyandi
11.Lakshmi
12.Minor Rajendran
13.Minor Sokkar
14.Minor Jayanthi
15.Akilandum
16.Maari
17.Rajendran
18.Balamurugan
19.Pandiammal
2/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMP(MD).No.3899 of 2021
20.Karuppiah
21.Saraswathi
22.Chandrasekaran
23.Alagar
24.Jeyaraman
25.Indhurani
26.Chandra
[Respondents 15 to 26 are brought on record as
LRs of deceased 1st respondent vide order dated
21.04.2022 in CMP(MD).No.1297/22 by CVKJ]
... Respondents
The Civil Miscellaneous Petition filed under Section 5 of
Limitation Act, to condone the delay of 823 days in filing the above
review petition against the Judgment and decree of this Court made in
S.A.No.1353 of 2000 dated 27.09.2018.
For Appellant : Mr.S.I.Muthiah
For Respondent : Mr.V.S.Rishikesh (for R.15 to R.22)
ORDER
(Heard through Video Conference)
This petition has been filed to condone the delay of 823 days in
filing review to the judgment in S.A.No.1353 of 2000 which Second
Appeal was dismissed on 27.09.2018.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMP(MD).No.3899 of 2021
2. In the petition filed seeking to condone the delay, it had been
stated that first appellant died on 07.02.2004, second appellant died
on 27.02.2012, the third appellant died on 01.10.2014 and the fourth
appellant died on 29.01.2008. Now the legal representatives have filed
the present application. It had been stated that the first respondent /
defendant was trying to alienate the suit properties and at that point of
time, they came to know that the appeal has been dismissed and they
have filed the present application and there has been a delay in filing
review and now the delay is sought to be condoned.
3. A counter has been filed on behalf of the respondents who
again contended that the four appellants had died and nothing survives
to adjudicate effectively and the appeal should be dismissed as abated.
It is therefore contended by the learned counsel that quite apart from
the reasons given to condone the delay in filing the application to
review the judgment in the Second Appeal, there is a delay of 6586
days to set aside the abatement caused due to the death of first
appellant, 3644 days delay to set aside the abatement caused due to
the death of second appellant, 2697 days delay to set aside the
abatement caused due to the death of third appellant and 5192 days
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMP(MD).No.3899 of 2021
delay to set aside the abatement caused due to the death of fourth
appellant. Quite apart from this delay, there is delay of 836 days in
filing the review application.
4. It is seen that the plaintiffs were the appellants before this
Court. The suit has been filed for mandatory injunction and for
declaration of title and alternate relief sought to uphold the title of
adverse possession. It is contended by the learned counsel for the
appellant that a settlement patta has been granted and that has been
misconstrued by the Appellate Court against the appellants herein.
5. An issue of fact cannot be re-agitated in the Second appeal.
Condoning the delay, no effective advantage would accrue to any one
of the parties. Irrespective of the above, the reasons stated to
condone the delay, is not convincing. The legal representatives who
knew that the first appellant had died as early as in the year 2004
itself, should have taken necessary steps to step into the shoes of the
first appellant. They have not explained why they have not done so.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMP(MD).No.3899 of 2021
6. I do not find any convincing reason to condone the delay. The
Civil Miscellaneous Petition stands dismissed.
7. In view of the fact that as on date, the legal heirs hold that a
title is vested in them, if at all, they are able to find a way to establish
that claim of title, then, if any legal proceeding instituted by them is
lawfully valid, they may file necessary proceedings in that regard to
protect their rights, if any.
8. The observations made in the Second appeal, may not hold
good owing to the fact that even on that particular date, the appeal
had stood abated against the appellant.
9. With the above observations, the Civil Miscellaneous Petition
stands dismissed. Accordingly the Review stands rejected at the SR
stage. No costs.
26.07.2022
Index:Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
mrm
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMP(MD).No.3899 of 2021
C.V.KARTHIKEYAN,J.
mrm
C.M.P.(MD).No.3899 of 2021 in
Rev.Aplc(MD).SR.No.4792 of 2021
26.07.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
