Kalianna Gounder v. Santhamani
Case brief
What is this about?
The court dismissed an application for condonation of delay in filing a second appeal. It held the appeal unnecessary because the parties could challenge the property character in the pending first appeal against the single decree, following Vembayee Ammal.
What did the court decide?
CMP dismissed; SA SR.No.39401 of 2019 rejected.
What the court decided
A compact analysis
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN
Prayer:
Condone delay petition filed under Order XLI Rule 3(a) of the Code of Civil Procedure r/w. Order XLII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying to condone the delay of 2256 days in filing the second appeal.
This application has been filed seeking condonation of delay of 2256 days in filing the second appeal.
- Before going into the reasons for the delay, it has to be seen as to whether the appeal itself is necessary, in view of the following facts. The first respondent herein, Santhamani filed a suit in O.S.No.102 of 2010 seeking partition and separate possession of her 1/4th share in the suit properties. The suit itself was based on the claim that the suit properties are the ancestral properties of the joint family of which, the first defendant Kaliannagounder / first appellant in this appeal was the Kartha. The defendants 2 and 3 are the son and other daughter of Kaliannagounder. According to the plaintiff, upon
enactment of Act 39 of 2005, she would become a Co-parcener along with her father and the defendants 2 and 3 and as such she would be entitled to partition and separate possession of her 1/4th share. Certain settlement deeds were claimed to be invalid.
Issues for consideration
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a second appeal is maintainable when a single suit resulted in one aggregate decree despite multiple appeals filed?
Whether condonation of delay is necessary when the appeal itself is legally unnecessary?
Parties & counsel
- appellant
Defendants
- respondent
Plaintiffs
Coram
R. Subramanian
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court