Allowed¶51

The Tamil Nadu v. Palaniyammal

Condonation of delay – Death of first respondent during pendency of second appeal

Madras HC30 Oct 2025CMP/19395/2021

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court order condoning 2170-day delay in bringing legal representatives of deceased first respondent on record in SA No. 1245 of 2008; sufficiency of cause measured from date of knowledge of death (28.06.2021); abatement due to death of respondent; limitation counted from knowledge; costs of Rs.5000/- imposed; distinguished Lanka Venkateswarlu (2011) 4 SCC 363 and Balwant Singh (2010) 8 SCC 685; second appeal filed 2008, death occurred 07.11.2013.

What did the court decide?

Delay of 2170 days in bringing on record the legal representatives of the deceased first respondent condoned, subject to payment of Rs.5000/- to the learned counsel for the second respondent (Ms.K.Megala, representing Mr.N.Manokaran, learned counsel on record) within four weeks. ¶51

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶51

Issue for consideration

Whether the delay of 2170 days in bringing the legal representatives of the deceased first respondent on record in the pending second appeal should be condoned. +1 more

¶18

Court's answer

The delay in bringing the LRs of the deceased first respondent on record is condoned: the petition was filed within 90 days of the appellant's knowledge of the death (intimation dated 28.06.2021), and where sufficient cause exists the length of delay is totally immaterial; condonation is subject to payment of reasonable costs.

¶50

Ratio / Principle

The contention that the petitioner/appellant had knowledge of the death of R1 in 2013 itself cannot be accepted: notices must have been dispatched to the respondents during 2008-09, before R1 died in 2013, so their return unserved could not have conveyed knowledge of the death.

¶32

Key takeaways

The Supreme Court decisions relied on by the second respondent were held inapplicable: in Lanka Venkateswarlu there was an abnormal delay of 2170 days even after intimation of the death and particulars of LRs, whereas here the petition was filed well within 90 days of intimation; Balwant Singh dealt with non-existence of sufficient cause, which is absent here.ratio¶43

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Condonation of delay - Death of first respondent during pendency of second appeal - Petition to condone delay of 2170 days in bringing LRs of deceased R1 on record allowed. R1 died on 07.11.2013; the appellant claimed knowledge of the death only on 28.06.2021 upon intimation by the second respondent and filed the petition on 24.08.2021, within 90 days of such knowledge. The Court held that notices dispatched in 2008-09, before the death, could not have conveyed knowledge of the death when returned unserved, rejecting the second respondent's contention; where sufficient cause exists, the length of delay is totally immaterial. Supreme Court decisions in Lanka Venkateswarlu (dead) by LRs v. State of A.P., (2011) 4 SCC 363, and Balwant Singh (dead) v. Jagdish Singh, (2010) 8 SCC 685, distinguished as cases where sufficient cause was absent. Condonation made subject to costs of Rs.5000/- payable to counsel for the second respondent within four weeks. (Mummineni Sudheer Kumar J.; 30-10-2025)

¶1

CMP No. 19395 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. 19395 of 2021 IN

¶7

SA NO. 1245 OF 2008

¶8

The Tamil Nadu Industrial Investments Corporation Ltd Rep By Its Branch Manger 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 Distict and others

¶12

Respondent(s)

¶13

For petitioner, :Ms.N.Subha For Respondent(s): Ms.K.Megala for M/s.N.Manokaran For R16 To R18 And R20 To R22 Cmp 19395, 19393 And

¶14

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

¶15

CMP No. 19395 of 2021

¶16

19389/2021 --------R15 - Unclaimed R14- Died Pvt Notice ----------R-15 P.Mohanvel R14 - Died

¶17

ORDER

¶18

This petition has been filed seeking to condone the delay of 2170 days in

¶19

bringing on record the Lrs of the deceased first respondent.

¶20

2.On a perusal of the affidavit filed in support of this petition, it discloses that R1 died on 07.11.2013 i.e., during the pendency of the present

¶21

second appeal and the same was not within the knowledge of the petitioner/appellant.

¶22

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

¶23

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

¶24

the respondents furnished the particulars of the Lrs of the deceased first

¶25

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

¶26

CMP No. 19395 of 2021

¶27

respondent. Thus the petitioner claimed knowledge about the death of the first respondent only on 28.06.2021 and immediately, thereafter, i.e., on 24.08.2021, the present petition has been filed along with the petitions to set aside the abatement caused due to the death of R1 and bring on record the Lrs of the deceased R1. If the Limitation is counted from the date of knowledge of the petitioner and the same may be within 90 days.

¶28

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

¶29

ground that the petitioner/appellant has full knowledge about the death of R1, immediately, when the notices that were sent to R1, were returned un-served. 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 R1. As already noted above, R1 died in

¶30

the year 2013, whereas, the present second appeal was filed in the year 2008.

¶31

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

¶32

been dispatched to the respondents during the year 2008-09 as death of R1 is

¶33

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

¶34

CMP No. 19395 of 2021

¶35

only in the year 2013. Therefore, it cannot be accepted that the

¶36

petitioner/appellant has knowledge about the death of R1 in the year 2013 itself.

¶37

R2 also disputed that the delay calculated by the petitioner/appellant as 2170

¶38

days and contended that the actual delay is 2855 days. Whatsoever be the delay, the reason assigned in the affidavit filed in support of this petition is on

¶39

the knowledge of the death of R1 and petition has been filed within 90 days of such knowledge.

¶40

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

¶41

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

¶42

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

¶43

the particulars of LRs were also furnished, there was abnormal delay of 2170 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,

¶44

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

¶45

CMP No. 19395 of 2021

¶46

there is no sufficient cause in the above said decision. In so far as the case of

¶47

Balwant Singh(dead) Vs. Jagdish Singh and Others is concerned, the Hon'ble

¶48

Apex Court considered the non-existence of the sufficient cause.

¶49

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

¶50

in affidavit filed in support of this petition is that the knowledge about the death of R1 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 payment of reasonable costs.

¶51

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

¶52

30-10-2025

¶53

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

¶54

CMP No. 19395 of 2021

¶55

¶56

¶57

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

¶58

2.RAMASWAMY

¶59

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

¶60

3.RANGANATHAN

¶61

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

¶62

4.THANKAVELU

¶63

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

¶64

5.SELLAMMAL

¶65

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

¶66

6.CHINNAMMAL

¶67

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

¶68

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

¶69

CMP No. 19395 of 2021

¶70

Gounder, Pancha Goundalur, Kasthuripatti Village, Sangagiri Tk, Salem Dist.

¶71

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

¶72

8.RAJAMMAL

¶73

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

¶74

9.ATHAYEE

¶75

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

¶76

10.SELLAMMAL

¶77

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

¶78

11.VARUDHAYEE

¶79

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

¶80

12.ALAGAMMAL

¶81

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

¶82

13.MUTHAYEE

¶83

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

¶84

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

¶85

CMP No. 19395 of 2021

¶86

Dist.

¶87

14.Palani Gounder,

¶88

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

¶89

15.P.Mohanvel

¶90

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

¶91

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

¶92

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

¶93

18.C.Rajammal

¶94

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

¶95

19.R.Palanivel

¶96

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

¶97

20.P.Pappa

¶98

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

¶99

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

¶100

CMP No. 19395 of 2021

¶101

21.P.Jothi

¶102

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

¶103

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

¶104

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

¶105

CMP No. 19395 of 2021

¶106

MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR J., dn

¶107

CMP No. 19395 of 2021 IN SA NO. 1245 OF 2008

¶108

30-10-2025

¶109

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