RSA No.844 of 2021
1
# **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM**
# **PRESENT**
**THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHIRCY V.**
**THURSDAY, THE 17[TH] DAY OF MARCH 2022 / 26TH PHALGUNA, 1943**
**RSA NO. 844 OF 2021**
**AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN AS 3/2020 OF SUB**
## **COURT,KATTAPPANA**
**OS 103/2013 OF MUNSIFF COURT, IDUKKI**
## **APPELLANT/APPELLANT/DEFENDANT**
JOSEPH AGED 76 YEARS SON OF CHACKO, RESIDING AT KALAYIL HOUSE, THOPRAMKUDY KARA, VATHIKUDY VILLAGE, UDUMBANCHOLA TALUK, PIN-685 604 BY ADVS. K.K.CHANDRAN PILLAI (SR.) S.AMBILY MICKY THOMAS
## **RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF**
GEORGEKUTTY AGED 52 YEARS S/O MANI, RESIDING AT KAIPPANPALCKAL HOUSE, MARIGIRI KARA, VATHIKUDY VILLAGE, UDUMBANCHOLA TALUK, PIN-685 604
BY ADV R.LAKSHMI NARAYAN(K/292/1989) (BY ORDER)
THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23.02.2022, THE COURT ON 17.03.2022 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
RSA No.844 of 2021
2
## **JUDGMENT**
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and decree in A.S.No.3 of 2020 of the Sub Court, Kattappana filed against the judgment and decree in O.S.No.103 of 2013 of the Munsiff Court, Idukki, the appellant/the defendant has preferred this second appeal. The learned Munsiff has decreed the suit filed by the respondent herein for specific performance of an agreement for sale and perpetual prohibitory injunction by a judgment and decree on 26.6.2015. The appellant approached the appellate court challenging the said judgment and decree after a long delay of 1638 days. The learned Sub Judge on the finding that there is no sufficient cause to condone the inordinate delay dismissed the petition on 1.9.2021. The appeal was also dismissed on the very same day.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondent.
3. The respondent has a case that he is the owner in possession of the plaint A schedule property which he purchased as per Sale Deed No.2475 of 1997 of Rajakumari SRO. B schedule is a portion of land owned by the appellant lying close to A schedule
RSA No.844 of 2021
3
property. A toilet is situated in the A schedule property but its septic tank is located in B schedule property and the respondent was permitted to use the same. So the parties entered into an agreement of sale pertaining to that portion of property fixing the sale consideration as Rs.42,500/-. An amount of Rs.15,000/- was given on the date of execution of the agreement, ie; on 30.1.2005 and the balance was fixed to be paid at the time of execution of the sale deed as there was some restriction with respect to alienation of the property at that point of time since the appellant was holding patta over the said land under the Land Assignment Rules. Though the restriction was lifted on 16.11.2010, inspite of request the appellant failed to execute the sale deed and hence, the suit.
4. The appellant contended before the court below that the document is a forged one and he did not receive any amount as sale consideration. It was also contended that there was no restriction imposed on alienation over B schedule property.
5. Before the court below evidence was adduced on both sides .For the respondent PW1 to PW4 were examined and Ext.A1 to A9 were marked. The appellant himself was examined as DW1. CW1 and CW2 were examined as court witness and Ext.X1 and Ext.C1 were marked as court exhibits.
RSA No.844 of 2021
4
6. The court below after considering the rival contentions decreed the suit for specific performance on the finding that the agreement for sale executed between the parties is a genuine document and the appellant is bound to execute the sale deed and to assign the B schedule property in favour of the respondent within a period of two months from the date of the decree.
7. It is pertinent to note that a second appeal is maintainable against the dismissal of the first appeal consequent to the dismissal of a petition to condone the delay in filing the first appeal. But the scope of the appeal is very limited. In **Thambi vs. Mathew** [1987 (2) KLT 848 (F.B)] a Full Bench of this Court observed that an appeal filed along with an application for condoning the delay in filing the appeal when dismissed on refusal to condone the delay is nevertheless a decision in the appeal. Dismissal of the appeal for the reason of delay after dismissal of an application for condonation of delay is in substance and effect, a confirmation of the decree appealed against. An order dismissing the appeal is a decree that can be subject of a second appeal. The decision in Thambi's case was referred by the Apex Court in **Shyam Sunder Sarma v. Pannal Jaiswal and others** [AIR 2005 SC 226] and observed as follows:
RSA No.844 of 2021
5
“10. The question was considered in extenso by a Full Bench of the Kerala High Court in Thambi v. Mathew [1987 (2) KLT 848]. Therein, after referring to the relevant decisions on the question it was held that an appeal presented out of time was nevertheless an appeal in the eye of law for all purposes and an order dismissing the appeal was a decree that could be the subject of a second appeal. It was also held that Rule 3A of Order XLI introduced by Amendment Act 104 of 1976 to the Code, did not in any way affect that principle. An appeal registered under Rule 9 of Order XLI of the Code had to be disposed of according to law and a dismissal of an appeal for the reason of delay in its presentation, after the dismissal of an application for condoning the delay, is in substance and effect a confirmation of the decree appealed against. Thus, the position that emerges on a survey of the authorities is that an appeal filed along with an application for condoning the delay in filing the appeal when dismissed on the refusal to condone the delay is nevertheless a decision in the appeal.
8. This Court in RSA No.389 of 2011, a similar case (Mr.Justice M.Sasidharan Nambiar) had observed that when an application to condone the delay in filing the first appeal is dismissed though a second appeal will lie, the scope of such an appeal is limited. Appellants in such an appeal can canvass only the correctness of dismissal of the application for condonation of delay and not the merits of the judgment of the trial court.
9. Here, the appeal was preferred before the 1[st] appellate court after an inordinate delay of 1638 days. A contention was
RSA No.844 of 2021
6
raised by the appellant that in fact he had engaged his friend one Advocate Jose Mathew Nedungattu to file the appeal, but he failed to file it and he realized the same only when the SHO, Murikkassery called him in connection with the case. Thus the delay occurred in filing the appeal and there was no willful latches in preferring the appeal. The order of the court below dated 1.9.2021 would show that after passing of the decree the appellant transferred the property to his daughter that too after demolishing the septic tank in the property and then the respondent filed a complaint before the police and the petitions before the Execution Court as E.A.Nos.34 of 2016 and 35 of 2016. A Commissioner was appointed to value the damages caused to the respondent. A draft sale deed was also issued to the appellant. As reply to the said I.A. he has informed that the property was transferred. Execution petition was filed by the respondent on 8.1.2016 and on 11.2.2016 this appellant appeared before the court. Thus it is clear that the appellant was fully aware of the proceedings and even the Commissioner had inspected the property after giving notice to him. Though the appellant was fully aware of all these facts, filed the appeal with a delay of 1638 days. The delay was not properly explained and in absence of sufficient cause, the application was
RSA No.844 of 2021
7
dismissed by the court and thereby the E.P filed in the year 2016 was proceeded with. The records would reveal that there was no sufficient cause to condone the inordinate delay in preferring the appeal by the appellant. It is also to be noted that the case before the court below was contested by the appellant and he was examined as DW1.
10. I have gone through the order passed by the court below in the application filed for condoning the delay by invoking Section 5 of the Limitation Act. A perusal of the records would reveal that the court below has correctly evaluated the facts of the case and relying on various judicial pronouncements of the Apex Court on the subject concluded that there was no valid reason or ground for condonation of delay and so the application was dismissed resulting the dismissal of the appeal. The records would in fact reveal that the delay was due to his deliberate attempt to gain time and no explanation is given for not preferring the appeal, even though he received notice directly from the Commissioner appointed in the execution petition. So the pleading lack bonafies. Only if the explanation is reasonable and plausible the judicial discretion can be exercised favourably taking a liberal approach. Explanation offered by appellant for the delay appears to be completely unsatisfactory
RSA No.844 of 2021
8
and not acceptable to the given facts of the case. As held by the Full Bench in Thambi's case (supra) the dismissal of the appeal amounts to the confirmation of the decree of the trial court.
11. Having regard to the facts and circumstances involved in this case, I find that no substantial question of law arise for consideration and there is no merits in the appeal.
In the result, the second appeal is dismissed as there is no question of law which arise for consideration in the appeal. No costs.
Sd/-
SHIRCY V JUDGE
smm
