Dismissed

Elamma v. St. Philominas Sadhujana

Kerala HC1 Mar 2016FAO/75/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A Family Appeal and a Compliance Memorandum application were dismissed. The court rejected the plea to condone a 1472-day delay, noting insufficient evidence for the appellant's claim of sickness and superior opportunities for family members to file timely appeals. Consequently, the subsequent appeal challenging a 1977 property sale was also dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Dispositon of both the Compliance Memorandum application and the Family Appeal against the impugned execution order.

Elamma Vs St. Philominas Sadhujana — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.HARIPRASAD

¶6

TUESDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF MARCH 2016/11TH PHALGUNA, 1937

¶7

FAO.No. 75 of 2014 ()

¶8

(ORDER DATED 21.6.2013 IN EA.NOS.906/12 & 290/13 IN EP.177/78 IN OS.33/72 OF SUB COURT, NORTH PARAVUR)

¶9

APPELLANT(S)/PETITIONERS/JUDGMENT DEBTOR 2 & LRS OF 1ST JUDGMENT DEBTOR:

¶10

ELAMMA, AGED 74 YEARS

¶11

W/O.JOSEPH, MATHIRAPPILLY VEETTIL, NEERIKOD KARA ALANGAD PAKUTHY, NORTH PARAVUR - 683 513.

¶12

THOMAS, AGED 48 YEARS S/O.JOSEPH, MATHIRAPPILLY VEETTIL, NEERIKOD KARA ALANGAD PAKUTHY, NORTH PARAVUR - 683 513.

¶13

BOBY, AGED 42 YEARS S/O.JOSEPH, MATHIRAPPILLY VEETTIL, NEERIKOD KARA ALANGAD PAKUTHY, NORTH PARAVUR - 683 513.

¶14

JAISON, AGED 40 YEARS S/O.JOSEPH, MATHIRAPPILLY VEETTIL, NEERIKOD KARA ALANGAD PAKUTHY, NORTH PARAVUR - 683 513.

¶15

UJIN, AGED 38 YEARS S/O.JOSEPH, MATHIRAPPILLY VEETTIL, NEERIKOD KARA ALANGAD PAKUTHY, NORTH PARAVUR - 683 513.

¶16

BY ADVS.SRI.B.RAMACHANDRAN SMT.K.B.REKHA

¶17

RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS/DECREE HOLDERS:

¶18

ST. PHILOMINAS SADHUJANA SANGHAM, NO.145, VALLUVALLY, KOONAMMAVU P.O. - 683 513.

¶19

PRESIDENT, ST. PHILOMINAS SADHUJANA SANGHAM, NO.145, VALLUVALLY KOONAMMAVU P.O. - 683 513.

¶20

SECRETARY, ST. PHILOMINAS SADHUJANA SANGHAM, NO.145, VALLUVALLY KOONAMMAVU P.O. - 683 513.

¶21

TREASURER, ST. PHILOMINAS SADHUJANA SANGHAM, NO.145, VALLUVALLY KOONAMMAVU P.O. - 683 513.

¶22

R1-R4 BY ADV. SRI.PHILIP T.VARGHESE

¶23

R1-R4 BY ADV. SRI.THOMAS T.VARGHESE R1-R4 BY ADV. SMT.ACHU SUBHA ABRAHAM R1-R4 BY ADV. SMT.K.R.MONISHA R1-R4 BY ADV. SMT.SYAMA SIDHARTHAN

¶24

THIS FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDERS HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01-03-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶25

ANTONY DOMINIC & A. HARIPRASAD, JJ.

¶26

¶27

C.M.Appln.214 of 2014 & F.A.O.No.75 of 2014 ----------------------------------Dated this the 1^st day of March, 2016

¶28

JUDGMENT

¶29

Antony Dominic, J.

¶30

C.M.Appln.No.214/14 is filed to condone delay of 1472 days in filing the appeal which is against the order dated 21.6.2013 passed by the Sub Court, North Paravur dismissing E.A.Nos.906/12 and 290/13 in EP.No.177/78 in OS.No.33/72. In the affidavit filed by the first appellant, it is admitted that certified copy of the order was received on 8.7.2013 and that due to her old age sickness, she could not arrange a counsel to file an appeal within the period permitted by law.

¶31

First of all, nothing has been placed on record for us to accept the case of the first appellant that she was afflicted by old age sickness. Secondly, even if it is true, nothing prevented appellants 2 to 5, who are her children, from prosecuting the case within time. For both these reasons, the explanation offered for the delay cannot be accepted.

¶32

FAO.75/14

¶33

¶34

3.The sale which is sought to be set aside was conducted way back on 2.9.1977. The judgment debtor, husband of the first appellant, along with the first appellant had challenged the said sale by filing E.A.223/77 which was dismissed by the execution court on 11.7.1978 and the sale was confirmed on the same day. Subsequently, sale certificate was issued on 27.7.1978 and the property was delivered to the decree holder on 3.8.1979. It is the sale thus conducted on 2.9.1977 which is now sought to be challenged by the appellant. Both on the ground of delay and on merits also, we are not satisfied that the appellants are entitled to any order from this Court.

¶35

C.M.Appln.No.214/14 is dismissed. Consequently, the appeal also is dismissed.

¶36

Sd/ANTONY DOMINIC, Judge.

¶37

Sd/A. HARIPRASAD, Judge.

¶38

kkb.

¶39

/True copy/

¶40

PS to Judge

Elamma v. St. Philominas Sadhujana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Elamma v. St. Philominas Sadhujana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

A.a.Peter Vs C.v.Ayyappan

C.N Shyamala Vs State of Kerala

M.P.Kasim @ Kasmi Vs N.P.Haris

Gopakumar Vs Gopalakrishnan

T. Divakaran Vs Kerala Stae Electronic

P.Chandran Vs Yeshoda Divakaran