Allowed¶50

The Tamil Nadu v. Palaniyammal

Madras HC30 Oct 2025CMP/19375/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: condonation of delay; abatement; legal representatives (LRs) of deceased respondent; second appeal; sufficient cause; delay counted from date of knowledge; 90 days; costs of Rs.5000/-; notices returned unserved; Tamil Nadu Industrial Investments Corporation Ltd v. Palaniyammal; CMP No. 19375 of 2021 in SA No. 1245 of 2008; Madras High Court; distinguished (2011) 4 SCC 363 (Lanka Venkateswarlu) and (2010) 8 SCC 685 (Balwant Singh).

What did the court decide?

Delay of 1823 days in bringing on record the LRs of the deceased sixth respondent condoned, subject to the condition that the petitioner/appellant pays Rs.5000/- as costs to the learned counsel for the second respondent (Ms.K.Megala, representing Mr.N.Manokaran, counsel on record) within four weeks. ¶50

The Tamil Nadu Vs Palaniyammal — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶50

Issue for consideration

Whether the delay of 1823 days in bringing on record the legal representatives of the deceased sixth respondent ought to be condoned. +1 more

¶17-18

Court's answer

Whatever be the length of the delay (1823 days per the appellant or 2855 days per R2), the reason assigned is the knowledge of the death of R6 and the petition was filed within 90 days of such knowledge; hence the length of delay is totally immaterial as there is sufficient cause, and the delay can be condoned subject to payment of reasonable costs.

¶48

Ratio / Principle

Since R6 died only in 2014 while the appeal was of 2008, notices must have been dispatched in 2008-09; therefore it cannot be accepted that the petitioner/appellant had knowledge of the death of R6 in 2014 itself.

¶37

Key takeaways

The decision in Lanka Venkateswarlu (dead) by Lrs v. State of Andhra Pradesh is distinguishable: there the abnormal delay of 1823 days occurred after intimation of death and furnishing of LRs particulars, whereas in the instant case the petition was filed well within 90 days from the date of intimation furnished by the respondents.ratio¶44

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Condonation of delay - Madras High Court (Mummineni Sudheer Kumar J.) allowed CMP No. 19375 of 2021 in SA No. 1245 of 2008, condoning the delay of 1823 days in bringing on record the legal representatives of the deceased sixth respondent, subject to payment of Rs.5000/- as costs to the counsel for the second respondent within four weeks. The Court held that the appellant's knowledge of the death of R6 (who died on 20.10.2014 during the pendency of the 2008 second appeal) arose only on 28.06.2021 when the second respondent furnished the LRs particulars, and the petition was filed within 90 days thereof; the length of delay (whether 1823 days or 2855 days as contended by R2) was immaterial since sufficient cause existed. The Supreme Court decisions in Lanka Venkateswarlu (dead) by Lrs v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2011) 4 SCC 363, and Balwant Singh (dead) v. Jagdish Singh, (2010) 8 SCC 685, relied on by the second respondent, were distinguished on facts.

¶1

CMP No. 19375 of 2021

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 30-10-2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR

¶6

CMP No. 19375 of 2021 IN

¶7

SA NO. 1245 OF 2008

¶8

The Tamil Nadu Industrial Investments Corporation Ltd Rep By Its Branch Manager Mr R Govindaraj, Sri Lakshi Complex Ist Floor No 4/22 Omalur Main Road Salem- 4.

¶9

Appellant(s)

¶10

¶11

PALANIYAMMAL W/o.Palani Gounder, Sakiph Kattu, Puthur, Sevathur-po, Thirupattur Taluk, North Arcot Dist and others

¶12

Respondent(s)

¶13

For Petitioner: Ms.N.Subha for Mr.A.Ramesh Kumar For Respondents Ms.K.Megala for Mr.N.Manokarann for R2

¶14

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

¶15

CMP No. 19375 of 2021

¶16

ORDER

¶17

This petition has been filed seeking to condone the delay of 1823

¶18

days in bringing on record the Lrs of the deceased sixth respondent.

¶19

2.On a perusal of the affidavit filed in support of this petition, it

¶20

discloses that R6 died on 20.10.2014 i.e., during the pendency of the present

¶21

second appeal and the same was not within the knowledge of the

¶22

petitioner/appellant.

¶23

3.According to the petitioner, the same came to the knowledge of the

¶24

petitioner only on 28.06.2021 when the second respondent and the counsel for

¶25

the respondents furnished the particulars of the Lrs of the deceased sixth respondent. Thus the petitioner claimed knowledge about the death of the sixth respondent only on 28.06.2021 and immediately, thereafter, i.e., on 24.08.2021,

¶26

the present petition has been filed along with the petitions to set aside the

¶27

abatement caused due to the death of R6 and bring on record the Lrs of the

¶28

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

¶29

CMP No. 19375 of 2021

¶30

deceased R6. If the Limitation is counted from the date of knowledge of the petitioner and the same may be within 90 days.

¶31

4.However, the second respondent opposed this petition on the

¶32

ground that the petitioner/appellant has full knowledge about the death of R1, immediately, when the notices that were sent to R6, were returned un-served.

¶33

Though an elaborate counter affidavit has been filed, no date is furnished and no specific averrment is made with regard to the knowledge of the petitioner/appellant about the death of R6. As already noted above, R6 died in

¶34

the year 2014, whereas, the present second appeal was filed in the year 2008.

¶35

5.Therefore, in the considered view of this Court, notices must have

¶36

been dispatched to the respondents during the year 2008-09 as death of R6 is

¶37

only in the year 2014. Therefore, it cannot be accepted that the petitioner/appellant has knowledge about the death of R6 in the year 2014 itself. R2 also disputed that the delay calculated by the petitioner/appellant as 1823

¶38

days and contended that the actual delay is 2855 days. Whatsoever be the

¶39

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

¶40

CMP No. 19375 of 2021

¶41

delay, the reason assigned in the affidavit filed in support of this petition is on

¶42

the knowledge of the death of R6 and petition has been filed within 90 days of such knowledge.

¶43

6.The learned counsel for the second respondent placed reliance on

¶44

the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court to oppose the relief, namely (2011) 4SCC363 and (2010) 8 SCC 685 . In the case of Lanka Venkateswarlu(dead) by Lrs Vs.State of Andhra Pradesh and Others , the Hon'ble Apex Court has considered the case, where after intimation of the death of the respondent and the particulars of LRs were also furnished, there was an abnormal delay of 1823 days, in bringing on record the Lrs of the deceased respondent. But in the instant case, the petition has been filed well within 90 days from the date of intimation furnished by the respondents to the petitioner/appellant. Therefore, there is no sufficient cause in the above said decision. In so far as the case of Balwant Singh(dead) Vs. Jagdish Singh and Others is concerned, the Hon'ble Apex Court considered the non-existence of the sufficient cause.

¶45

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

¶46

CMP No. 19375 of 2021

¶47

7.In the instant case, the reason assigned by the petitioner/appellant

¶48

in affidavit filed in support of this petition is that the knowledge about the death of R6 to the petitioner /appellant is only on 28.06.2021, when the intimation was given by the second respondent to the petitioner/appellant. Therefore, the length of delay is totally immaterial as there is sufficient cause. However, this Court is of the considered view that the delay can be condoned subject to

¶49

payment of reasonable costs.

¶50

8.Accordingly, this petition is allowed subject to the condition that

¶51

the petitioner /appellant pays a sum of Rs.5000/- to the learned counsel for the second respondent namely Ms.K.Megala, learned counsel representing Mr.N.Manokaran, learned counsel on record, within a period of four weeks

from today.

30-10-2025

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

¶56

CMP No. 19375 of 2021

¶57

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

¶58

CMP No. 19375 of 2021

¶59

¶60

1.PALANIYAMMAL W/o.Palani Gounder, Sakiph Kattu, Puthur, Sevathur-po, Thirupattur Taluk, North Arcot Dist.

¶61

2.RAMASWAMY

¶62

W/o.Raja Gounder, Raja Muthaliar Kottam, Puthur, Sevathur-po, Thirupattur Taluk, North Arcot Dist.

¶63

3.RANGANATHAN

¶64

S/o.Raja Gounder, Raja Muthaliar Kottam, Puthur, Sevathur-po, Thirupattur Taluk, North Arcot Dist.

¶65

4.THANKAVELU

¶66

S/o.Chinna Gounder, No.1 And 2, Maragaundan Valavu, Olakkachinnur Po, Vaikundam Village, Sangagiri Taluk, Salem Dist.

¶67

5.SELLAMMAL

¶68

D/o.Chinna Gounder, W/o. Thankavelu, Kollinchi Kattur, Olakkachinnur Po, Vaikundam Village, Sangagiri Tk, Salem Dist.

¶69

6.CHINNAMMAL

¶70

D/o.Sellappa Gounder, W/o. Chinnan Gounder, Pancha Goundalur,

¶71

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

¶72

CMP No. 19375 of 2021

¶73

Kasthuripatti Village, Sangagiri Tk, Salem Dist.

¶74

7.Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd. Branch Manager, Erode Road, Erode

¶75

8.RAJAMMAL

¶76

W/o.Late Raja Gounder, Mosagaundan Valaivu, Olakkachinnur Po, Vaikundam Village, Sangagiri Tk, Salem Dist.

¶77

9.ATHAYEE

¶78

W/o.Palani Gounder, Chakip Kadu, Puthu, Sevathur Po, Thirupattur Tk, North Arcot Dist.

¶79

10.SELLAMMAL

¶80

W/o.Marappah Gounder, Veerakkadu, Valakuttai, Vaikundam Village, Sangagiri Tk, Salem Dist.

¶81

11.VARUDHAYEE

¶82

D/o.Kaneshan Alice Ramaswamy, Rasamuthaliar, Puthu, Sevathur Po, Thirupattur Tk, North Arcot Dist.

¶83

12.ALAGAMMAL

¶84

W/o.Palanivel, Echampalayam, Vaikundam Village, Sangagiri Tk, Salem Dist.

¶85

13.MUTHAYEE

¶86

W/o.Ramaswamy, Ramaswamy Kattu, Erukalur Village, Sangagiri Tk, Salem

¶87

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

¶88

CMP No. 19375 of 2021

¶89

Dist.

¶90

14.Palani Gounder,

¶91

Door No.7/42, Thekkuthottam, Kannurapatti, Po Via Nathamedu, Puduchathiram-637104

¶92

15.P.Mohanvel

¶93

S/o.Palani Gounder, Door No.7/42, Thekkuthottam, Kannurapatti, Po Via Nathamedu, Puduchathiram-637104

¶94

16.SAMPOORNAM W/o.Venkatesh Door No.7/42, Thekkuthottam, Kannurapatti, Po Via Nathamedu, Puduchathiram-637104

¶95

17.C.Ramasamy S/o.Chinnan Gounder, Panjagoundanur, Kasturipatti Village, Sangagiri Tk, Salem District

¶96

18.C.Rajammal W/o.Ramasamy, Pappankadu, Maravampalayam, Vadugapatti Post, Sangagiri Tk, Salem District

¶97

19.R.Palanivel S/o.Ramasamy Gounder, Echampalayam, Kedikkaval Village, Sangagiri Tk, Salem District

¶98

20.P.Pappa

¶99

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

¶100

CMP No. 19375 of 2021

¶101

W/o.Chandrasekaran, Echampalayam, Kedikkaval Village, Sangagiri Tk, Salem District

¶102

21.P.Jothi

¶103

W/o.Kandasamy, Echampalayam, Kedikkaval Village, Sangagiri Tk, Salem District

¶104

22.P.Madhappan

¶105

S/o.Palanivel, Echampalayam, Kedikkaval Village, Sangagiri Tk, Salem District

¶106

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

¶107

CMP No. 19375 of 2021

¶108

MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR J., dn

¶109

CMP No. 19375 of 2021 IN SA NO. 1245 OF 2008

¶110

30-10-2025

¶111

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

The Tamil Nadu v. Palaniyammal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Tamil Nadu v. Palaniyammal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K.Dhanavel, Vs the Union of India

Krishnamurthy Mudaliar (Died) Vs Chellapappa

A.Krishnasamy Udayar Vs Veerappa Udayar

The Tamil Nadu Industrial Investments Corporation Ltd., Vs Palaniyammal

The Tamil Nadu Vs Palaniyammal

The Tamil Nadu Vs Palaniyammal