Page No.# 1/13 GAHC030002122025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/55/2025 Smt. Zonunmawii Renthlei D/o R. Thanliana (L), R/o Vaivakawn Zotlang Road, Aizawl, Mizoram VERSUS Smt. R. Lalluahsangi D/o Zachhinga (L), R/o Vaivakawn Zotlang Road, Aizawl, Mizoram Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. L.H. Lianhrima, Sr.Adv. Advocate for the Respondent : Mr Ashok Kumar Rokhum Linked Case : RFA/11/2025 Smt. Zonunmawii Renthlei D/o R. Thanliana (L) R/o Vaivakawn Zotlang Road Aizawl District Mizoram VERSUS Smt. R. Lalluahsangi D/o R. Zachhinga (L) R/o Vaivakawn Zotlang Road Aizawl Page No.# 2/13 Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. L.H. Lianhrima Sr.Adv. Advocate for the Respondent : Mr Ashok Kumar Rokhum B E F O R E HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE MARLI VANKUNG ORDER 11.11.2025 Heard Mr. L.H. Lianhrima, learned Senior counsel for the applicant/ appellant assisted by Ms. Ruth Lalruatfeli, learned counsel. Also heard Mr. A.K. Rokhum, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. This is an application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for condoning a delay of 1387 days in filing the connected appeal against the impugned order dated 22.03.2021 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge –II, Aizawl in Heirship Certificate No. 476/2021. 3. Mr. L.H. Lianhrima, learned Senior counsel, submitted that the applicant is the granddaughter of Notuaii (L), being the daughter of the deceased son of Notuaii, while the respondent is the daughter of the deceased Notuaii. The impugned Heirship Certificate No. 476/2024 is in respect of the property left behind by Notuaii (L) covered by LSC No. 538/1973. The learned Sr. Counsel for the applicant submits that the delay of 1387 days in filing the appeal against the order of the Senior Civil Judge Page No.# 3/13 – II, Aizawl, in Heirship Certificate No. 476/2021 was not due to any negligence on the part of the applicant. He submitted that the impugned Heirship Certificate No. 476/2021 was issued to the respondent without any notice being issued at the time of issuance of the Heirship Certificate. The learned counsel submitted that on perusal of the order sheet of the learned Trial Court, dated 22.03.2021. It is seen that the application for issuance of Heirship Certificate was received on 22.03.2021 and the application was admitted and registered as Heirship Certificate Application No. 476/2021. The learned Trial Court had then fixed the same date i.e 22.03.2021 for P/E and for the applicant to produce the original documents. Thereafter, the learned Trial Court had considered the documents attached to the application and on the same date i.e 22.03.2021 examined the sister of the instant respondent, who had given a no objection certificate to the issuance of Heirship Certificate to the present respondent in respect of LSC No. 538/1973. The impugned Heirship Certificate was then issued to the present respondent on 22.03.2021. 4. The learned senior counsel submitted that the learned Trial Court had erred in issuing the impugned Heirship Certificate on the same day that the application was made, by examining the sister i.e., Laldingliani, who had issued a no objection certificate, without giving notice to the Page No.# 4/13 applicant/appellant. 5. The learned Senior counsel submitted the authenticity of the issuance of no objection certificate and the deposition of the sister i.e., Laldingliani is also highly questionable since the said Laldingliani is a blind person and she could not have affixed her signature in the court. He also brought to the notice of the court the difference in the signatures of the said Laldingliani in the no objection certificate and in her deposition form. 6. The learned Senior counsel further submitted that the applicant was living in the property covered by the LSC No. 538/1973 located at Vaivakawn, Aizawl and the respondent was living next door, however, no notice was issued to the applicant regarding the issuance of the Heirship Certificate in respect of the LSC No. 538/1973. The learned senior counsel submitted that the applicant, being the daughter of the deceased son of Pi Notuaii, had a rightful legal claim over the property mentioned in the Heirship Certificate. The applicant got to know about the impugned Heirship Certificate No. 476/2021, only at a belated stage when some prospective buyers of the landed property, covered under LSC No. 538/1973, had come into the house to inspect the building, where she had been residing since the lifetime of her grandmother Pi Notuaii till date. 7. The learned Senior counsel also submitted that immediately after Page No.# 5/13 getting to know that an Heirship Certificate was issued to the respondent behind her back, without her knowledge, the applicant had taken the necessary steps by applying for the certified true copy of the impugned order dated 25.03.2021 which was issued to her on 27.03.2021. Thereafter, the applicant has immediately file the instant appeal along with the application for the condonation of delay of 1387 days which had occurred since the applicant was not aware of the issuance of the Heirship Certificate to the respondent in respect of LSC No. 538/1973. 8. The learned senior counsel also submitted that the respondent had advised and instructed the applicant to take bank loan for the re- construction of the ancestral home within the LSC No. 538/1973, which belonged to the late grandfather of the applicant/appellant. The appellant had taken loan of Rs. 70 lakhs from the Mizoram Rural Bank, Vaivakawn Branch under the instruction of the respondent, R.Lalluahsangi and with the loan money the depilated building was re-constructed. The applicant and her family had been in occupation of the building covered by LSC No. 538/1973 without disturbance till she got to know that the respondent was planning to sell the house when some prospective buyers came to inspect the house. The applicant then got to know of the issuance of Heirship Certificate to the respondent only when she made queries in the District Page No.# 6/13 court. 9. The learned senior counsel has relied on the judgment of the coordinate bench of this court in Lalchamliana Vs. Margareth Malsawmkimi Zadeng in RSA No. 2/2021 dated 12.05.2022, wherein the court had condoned a delay of 4196 days by observing that the wife of the appellant being the guarantor to the loan, was not expected to peruse all the documents to be aware of the impugned heirship certificate duly enclosed. The learned senior counsel also relied on the decision of the coordinate bench in Vanlalruati Vs. Lalhmangaihzuala in IA(C) No. 88/2024 dated 02.09.2024 & Lalfakawma Fanai Vs. Lalrempuii Fanai in RFA No. 24/2021 dated 17.09.2021 wherein delay was condoned on the grounds that the learned trial court had failed to issue notice. 10. Mr. AK. Rokhum, learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand submitted that the applicant was well aware of the issuance of the Heirship Certificate No.476/2021 to the respondent in respect of LSC No. 538/1973 located at Vaivakawn, Aizawl, Mizoram. He submitted that the instant condonation of delay application and Regular First Appeal filed against the issuance of Heirship Certificate No. 476/2021 was just an afterthought and there is no reason to condone the delay of 1376 days, when the only ground of the applicant is that she was a necessary party at the time of Page No.# 7/13 issuance of the Heirship Certificate, while she was already aware of the Heirship Certificate the same year it was issued to the respondent. 11. The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that after Notuaii died on 22.06.2004 the respondent was issued the Heirship certificate on 22.03.2021 and the LSC was mutated in the name of the respondent on 05.10.2021. Thereafter, the applicant/appellant and the respondent had jointly taken loan amounting to Rs. 70 lakhs from the Mizoram Rural bank on 20.12.2021 by mortgaging the LSC 538/1973. At that time, the LSC No. 538/1973 was already mutated in the name of the petitioner. He submitted that, a joint application was made by the respondent and the applicant for the said loan wherein the applicant had affixed her signature along with the respondent in all the pages in the loan application, being fully aware that the mortgaged LSC No. 538/1973 was already mutated in the name of the petitioner on the issuance of the Heirship certificate in favour of the respondent. 12. The learned counsel submitted that since the applicant was well aware that the LSC No. 538/1973 was already mutated in the name of the respondent at the time when the loan was applied for, she cannot take the plea that she was not aware that the LSC was mutated in the name of the Page No.# 8/13 respondent or that she was not aware of the Heirship certificate was issued to the respondent in respect of the LSC No. 538/1973, since the mutation of the LSC No. 538/1973 in the name of the respondent can be done only on the issuance of the Heirship Certificate. 13. The learned counsel submitted that the applicant has not come before this court with clean hands and has suppressed the material fact that she was already aware of the issuance of Heirship Certificate when she along with the respondent had applied for the loan money on mortgaging the LSC No. 538/1973 on 18.12.2021 and thus, there was no grounds to condoned the delay of the 1376 days in filing the connected Regular First Appeal. 14. The learned counsel for the respondent has relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in Pundlik Jalam Patil Vs. Executive Engineers & ors reported in 2008 17 SCC 448 (Para 12) wherein the Apex Court held that incorrect statement made in the application seeking condonation of delay itself is sufficient to reject the application without any further inquiry as to whether the averments made in the application reveal sufficient cause to condone the delay. 15. The learned counsel has also relied on the judgment of the Apex Page No.# 9/13 Court in Esha Battacharjee Vs.Managing Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy and Ors. reported in 2013 12 SCC 649 (Para 10) wherein the Apex court had set aside the condonation of delay of days by the Division bench by observing that the plea of lack of knowledge lacks bona fides and that the courts are not supposed to legalise injustice on technical grounds as it is the duty of the court to remove injustice. 16. This court has considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both the parties and has also perused the documents on record. 17. This court finds that it is not a disputed fact that the impugned Heirship Certificate No. 476/2021 in respect of LSC No. 538/1973 was issued by the learned court of Senior Civil Judge – II, Aizawl, on the same date when the application for the Heirship Certificate was made on by the present respondent on 22.03.2021,without the issuance of any notice. It is, however, also seen that it is not a disputed fact that the applicant and the respondent had jointly procured loan of Rs. 70,00,000/-( Rupees seventy lakhs) from the Mizoram Rural Bank, Vaivakawn Branch for the reconstruction/renovation of the house built within the LSC No. 538/1973 and the perusal of the application for loan dated 18.12.2021, which is Page No.# 10/13 annexed along with the written objection filed by the respondent, it is seen that the mortgaged LSC No. 538/1973 used for procuring the loan, was already mutated in the name of the respondent on05.10.2021. This court, therefore, finds that it is improbable that the applicant was not aware that the said LSC was already mutated in the name of the respondent and since the mutation of the LSC 538/1973 in the name of the respondent would not be possible without the issuance of the Heirship Certificate, the applicant was also aware of the issuance of Heirship certificate in favour of the respondent. It is seen that the joint application was also duly signed by the applicant in all the pages of the application, wherein, the mortgaged property is shown as LSC 538/1973 which was clearly in the name of the respondent. 18. This court finds that this is not a case where the applicant was said to be a minor at the time when the loan application was made, nor is it a case wherein the applicant is said to be an illiterate person and not capable of understanding the full implications of mortgaging the LSC No. 538/1973 which was already mutated in the name of the respondent. 19. This court thus finds that the applicant appeared to be negligent in enquiring about the issuance of Heirship Certificate to the respondent, Page No.# 11/13 inspite of being a signatory to the loan application dated 18.12.2021, wherein, the LSC No. 538/1973 was already mutated in the name of the respondent. On the query made by the court, is has also been submitted at the bar that the repayment of the loan money was done by a third party who could be the potential buyers of the house. 20. This court also finds that the facts and circumstances of the judgments of the coordinate bench of this court relied upon by the learned senior counsel are different from the instant case and are therefore not applicable are different. 21. This court finds that the fact remains that the applicant, while applying for the loan on 18.12.2021 was aware that the mortgaged property LSC No. 538/1973 was already mutated in the name of the respondent, and no proper explanation is forthcoming as to why the applicant has now, after a delay of 1387 days, challenged the Heirship Certificate issued to the respondent in respect of the mortgaged LSC No. 538/1973. The applicant has also failed to mention on which date or month or year when she had enquired about the issuance of Heirship Certificate in the court. It is also seen that the applicant has not given any details of when i.e. the date or the month or even the year, when the mentioned said potential buyers of Page No.# 12/13 the house within the LSC No. 538/1973 had gone to inspect the house. The only date given by the applicant is the date when she received the certified true copy of the Heirship Certificate i.e. on 27.03.2025 but there is no proper explanation regarding the delay in applying for the certified true copy. 22. This court finds that the judgment of the Apex court in Esha Bhattacharjee v. Raghunathpur Nafar Academy, (supra) is aptly applicable in the instant case, wherein it was observed as follows: “32. The plea of lack of knowledge in the present case really lacks bona fides. The Division Bench of the High Court has failed to keep itself alive to the concept of exercise of judicial discretion that is governed by rules of reason and justice. It should have kept itself alive to the following passage from N. Balakrishnan [N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy, (1998) 7 SCC 123 : AIR 1998 SC 3222] : (SCC pp. 127-28, para 11) “11. … The law of limitation fixes a lifespan for such legal remedy for the redress of the legal injury so suffered. Time is precious and wasted time would never revisit. During the efflux of time, newer causes would sprout up necessitating newer persons to seek legal remedy by approaching the courts. So a lifespan must be fixed for each remedy. Unending period for launching the remedy may lead to unending uncertainty and consequential anarchy. The law of limitation is thus founded on public policy. It is Page No.# 13/13 enshrined in the maxim interest reipublicae ut sit finis litium (it is for the general welfare that a period be put to litigation). Rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the rights of the parties. They are meant to see that parties do not resort to dilatory tactics but seek their remedy promptly. The idea is that every legal remedy must be kept alive for a legislatively fixed period of time.” 23. For the above reasons, this court finds that the explanation given by the applicant cannot be said to be satisfactorily explanation in causing a delay of 1387 days in the filing the connected appeal against the impugned order dated 22.03.2021 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge –II, Aizawl in Heirship Certificate No. 476/2021 and thus this court is constrained to dismiss the instant I.A No. 55/2025. 24. Accordingly, I.A No. 55/2025 stands dismissed and disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant