Allowed

Ponnammal v. Saraswathi

Madras HC20 Aug 2024CMP/13556/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court condoned a delay of 2899 days in impleading legal representatives of a deceased appellant in a second appeal concerning ancestral property. The petitions were allowed on the condition that petitioners pay a cost, and legal heirs were impleaded as respondents.

What did the court decide?

Delay condoned; proposed legal representatives impleaded as respondents 6 and 7 upon payment of Rs. 10,000 as cost.

Ponnammal Vs Saraswathi — Property and Title | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

C.M.P. Nos.13556, 13473 & 13557 of 2021 in S.A.No.1148 of 2009

¶2

C.M.P.Nos.13556, 13473 & 13557 of 2021 in S.A. No. 1148 of 2009

¶3

T.V. THAMILSELVI, J.

¶4

These Civil Miscellaneous Petitions have been filed seeking to condone the delay of 2899 days in filing the petition to set aside the abatement, to set aside the abatement caused due to the death of 2^nd appellant, and to bring on record the proposed respondents 6 to 7 herein as legal representatives of deceased 2^nd appellant.

¶5

Mrs.V.Srimathi, learned counsel for petitioners/appellants submitted that pending appeal, 2^nd appellant died on 17.11.2011. He would submit that they were not aware of the proceedings to implead his legal heirs and also due to lack of communication, they have not informed about the death of 2^nd appellant and it is not due to any willful negligence on their part. However, the delay of 2899 days arose and the delay is neither willful nor wanton. Hence, he has filed the above petitions.

¶6

Mr.G.Perumal, learned counsel for respondents 1 to 5 appeared

¶7

and submitted that the first appeal in A.S.No. 70 of 2008 was disposed of on 30.04.2009 and challenging the same, the appellants have preferred the Second Appeal in the year of 2009. Thereafter, they failed to proceed with

¶8

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 1\4

¶9

C.M.P. Nos.13556, 13473 & 13557 of 2021 in S.A.No.1148 of 2009

¶10

the main appeal. Now, they are taking steps to implead legal heirs of 2^nd appellant with the delay of 2899 days without assigning any proper reasons for the delay. In fact, in the year of 2009 itself, they have preferred the Second Appeal and during the year of 2011, the 2^nd appellant died, but nearly about 10 years later, they are taking steps to implead legal heirs of 2^nd appellant. Hence, he raised strong objections.

¶11

On perusal of records, it reveals that the appellants are plaintiffs in the suit claiming share in the property of father through first wife. The respondents are legal heirs of second wife. As on date, they are enjoying the property. However, the Second Appeal was filed by the appellants contenting that the property belong to 1^st appellant husband Krishnan by ancestral, but according to the respondents, the property is a self-acquired property of Krishnan, who executed a Will and settled the same in favour of second wife after obtaining divorce from first wife. But, the both courts below concurrently denied the plaintiffs claim, against which, the present Second Appeal was preferred. However, as on date, the respondents are enjoying the property, but the Will is not proved before the courts below relied on by the respondents.

¶12

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2\4

¶13

C.M.P. Nos.13556, 13473 & 13557 of 2021 in S.A.No.1148 of 2009

¶14

Considering the facts and circumstances and the fact that there is a

¶15

delay on the part of appellants in impleading legal heirs of 2^nd appellant and the fact that since they are fighting before the courts below from the year of 2002 and in order to avoid further complications as well as all the appellants are illiterate and 1^st appellant is a Widow lady, having lack of knowledge about the proceedings to implead his legal heirs and also the fact that being satisfied with the reasons assigned in the affidavit, all the petitions are allowed on condition that the petitioners shall pay a cost of Rs.10,000/- payable to the learned counsel for respondents within a period of one week from the date of receipt of copy of this order. On such payment of cost, the proposed legal representatives of the 2^nd appellant are impleaded as respondents 6 and 7 in the above Second Appeal and the Registry is directed to carry out the necessary amendment in the cause title.

¶16

Post the matter on 11.09.2024.

¶17

20.08.2024

¶18

rpp

¶19

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 3\4

¶20

C.M.P. Nos.13556, 13473 & 13557 of 2021 in S.A.No.1148 of 2009

¶21

T.V.THAMILSELVI, J.

¶22

rpp

¶23

C.M.P.Nos. 13556, 13473 & 13557 of 2021 in

¶24

S.A. No. 1148 of 2009

¶25

20.08.2024

¶26

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 4\4

Ponnammal v. Saraswathi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ponnammal v. Saraswathi

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

Panchali Ammal Vs Kaliyaperumal

Mohan Vs Parveen

Packirisamy Vs Karuppaiyan

Soundari Vs S.K.Komarasamy GOUNDER(DIED)1.PONGIAMMAL

Soundari Vs S.K.Komarasamy GOUNDER(DIED)1.PONGIAMMAL

C. Marudhathal (Died), 1. a.Santha Vs K. Shanmugam