Last Updated:
With indications that the son, on whom the appellant relied, had betrayed her trust and colluded with the plaintiffs, the SC held that the delay deserved sympathetic consideration
The SC observed that in family disputes, elderly women often rely on male relatives to safeguard their legal interests. File pic/PTI
The Supreme Court has condoned a delay of nearly six years in filing an appeal by a 72-year-old woman who alleged that her son colluded with the plaintiffs in a partition suit and kept her uninformed about critical developments in the litigation.
Recommended Stories
The SC observed that in family disputes, elderly women often rely on male relatives to safeguard their legal interests, and when allegations of betrayal of such trust arise, courts must adopt a sympathetic approach.
A bench of Justices Pankaj Mithal and Joymalya Bagchi allowed an appeal filed by Methkupally Venkatamma challenging the Andhra Pradesh High Court’s order dated November 7, 2016, which had allowed a review petition filed by the plaintiffs in a partition suit and revived their appeal.
The top court directed that the review application be heard afresh on the merits after giving due notice to all concerned parties.
The dispute stems from a suit filed in 2003 by the first and second respondents seeking partition and separate possession of land parcels admeasuring around 37 acres situated at Pocharam Village, Ghatkeswar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.
A preliminary decree was passed on March 28, 2011. Venkatamma, the wife of late M Mohan Reddy, along with other legal heirs, challenged this preliminary decree in appeal.
The division bench allowed the appeal, holding that the suit property was neither joint nor partible. However, the plaintiffs later sought review of this decision, which was allowed by the High Court in 2016, leading to the revival of the appeal.
Before the Supreme Court, senior advocate S Niranjan Reddy, appearing for the respondents, argued that the appellant approached the court after an inordinate delay of 2,112 days without adequate justification.
He submitted that all defendants, including the appellant, were aware of the review proceedings and were represented by counsel.
He also pointed out that after the appeal was revived, the appellant and others participated in the proceedings, and even the third respondent, her eldest son, had moved a special leave petition (SLP) against an interim order, which was later withdrawn.
Contrary to this, senior advocate Nidhesh Gupta, representing Venkatamma, argued that she is a septuagenarian who entrusted her son, the third respondent, with the responsibility of managing the litigation.
He alleged that the son colluded with the plaintiffs and kept her in the dark regarding the review order and subsequent developments.
It was only in August 2022, when she learned through relatives that the SLP filed by her son had been withdrawn, that she became aware of the situation.
She then obtained case documents and filed her SLP in November 2022.
Ordinarily, the court said, it would not condone such a long delay. However, considering the specific averments and submissions indicating that the son, on whom the appellant relied, had betrayed her trust and colluded with the plaintiffs, the bench held that the delay deserved sympathetic consideration.
“It is common knowledge that in family disputes elderly women rely on their husbands or sons to look after their interest in litigation. When a case of betrayal of such trust is pleaded in a delayed condonation application, the Court is required to view the same with a sympathetic slant,” the order stated.
The court noted that although the appellant appeared to have been represented by counsel, the lawyer was evidently instructed by the third respondent, against whom the allegations of collusion were made.
It further observed that the High Court’s impugned order was cryptic and failed to record the submissions of the appellant, in whose favour the earlier appeal had been allowed.
Finding merit in the appellant’s argument that remanding the review for rehearing would not prejudice the respondents, the court said that preserving the existing cryptic order would result in the appellant losing a vital right derived from the appellate judgment dismissing the suit.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order and directed that the review application be reheard on the merits after giving due notice to all parties. It also instructed the High Court to dispose of the matter expeditiously without unnecessary adjournments.
About the Author
Sanya Talwar, Editor at Lawbeat, has been heading the organisation since its inception. After practising in courts for over four years, she discovered her affinity for legal journalism. She has worked previousl…Read More
Sanya Talwar, Editor at Lawbeat, has been heading the organisation since its inception. After practising in courts for over four years, she discovered her affinity for legal journalism. She has worked previousl… Read More
Loading comments…
Read More
