Sarojini, v. R.Raguram,

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 / Plaintiffs (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

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://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 1/2

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. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (CS-II) // True Copy // / /2022 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS) Myr To The III Additional District Judge, Tirunelveli.

+1 CC to M/s.D. SARAVANAN, Advocate ( SR-22197[F] dated 28/04/2022 ) +1 CC to M/s.P.ANAND, Advocate ( SR-22231[F] dated 28/04/2022 ) C.M.P.[MD]No.8664 of 2019 in A.S[MD]SR.No.66426 of 2019 28.04.2022 CK(CO) GC(30.05.2022) 2P 4C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2/2