CMP NO. 18485 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 29-01-2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI C.M.P.No.18485 of 2024 in REV.APPL.SR.No.17355 of 2024 & C.R.P.Nos.204 and 929 of 2024, C.M.P.Nos.4671, 5548 and 4671 of 2024, C.M.P.Nos.950, 4543 and 2462 of 2024 SOUNDARI W/o.Late.Perumalgounder, Paasakuttai Road, Vadakku Thottam, Vadakupettai, Sathyamangalam Taluk, Erode. and 6 Others ...Appellant(s) Vs S.K.Komarasamy Gounder(died) 1.Pongiammal, W/o.Komarasamy Gounder, D.No.236/14, Paasakuttai Road, K.C.Thottam, Vadakkupettai, Sathyamangalam Taluk, Erode District. and 3 Others ...Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Mr.Ma.P.Thangavel For Respondent(s) : Mr.S.Kamadevan 1\7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ORDER This Petition has been filed to condone the delay of 2211 days in filling the Review Petition. 2.The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that one Madha Kuravan, had leased out his agricultural property to an extent of 7.70-1/2 Acres to my husband, namely, Late. Perumal Gounder, in the year of 1976 and he was in possession and enjoyment of the same by cultivating the crops. Subsequently, both of them have entered into a Sale Agreement dated 11.06.1981 for a sale consideration of Rs.15,000/- and on the same day, received a sum of Rs.5,000/- and the balance consideration is Rs.10,000/-. The fixed time limit is for three months to perform the same. As per the terms of the Agreement, Perumal had paid the balance consideration and the said Madha Kuravan had executed a Sale Deed in Doc No. 1734 of 1981 dated 20.08.1981. Subsequently, the petitioner's husband name also mutated in the revenue records and he had paid the Kist. After demise of the said Perumal, the petitioners are in possession, cultivating the crops and enjoyment of the same without any hindrance whatsoever till the death of Perumal on 28.07.1995. After due enquiry, the petitioner came know about 2\7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis the case details, since my husband Perumal, being bonafide purchaser and in order to protect our valuable property right, the petitioner had filed a suit in OS No. 447 of 1996 for declaration and for permanent injunction, restraining the defendant from interfering with the peaceful possession. But, the Trial Court dismissed the suit on 09.08.2000. Aggrieved over the same, the plaintiffs had filed A.S. No. 48 of 2000 and the First Appellate Court was pleased to decree the suit as prayed on 16.08.2001. 3.As against which, the defendant had filed S.A. No.425 of 2002 before this Court and pending appeal, the 5th respondent, namely, Nanjappa Gounder passed away on 26.03.2012, but no steps have been taken to record the same. Unfortunately, the learned Judge failed to formulate the proper and necessary Substantial Questions of Law instead of proceed the final hearing based on the Substantial Questions of Law raised in the Grounds of Second Appeal, thus committed grave error on the face of record and thereby, allowing the Second appeal by the impugned Judgment and Decree dated 21.12.2017. Against which, the plaintiffs had filed the Special Leave to Appeal (C) Nos. 21628 of 2018, were also dismissed in SLP stage itself by an order dated 04.09.2018. Since the Apex Court without granting leave 3\7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis dismissed the SLP and that order cannot be merged with the impugned order passed by this Court. 4.The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the present Review Petition has been filed before this Court to set right the errors apparent on the face of record and also producing the copy of Sale Agreement dated 11.06.1981 for proper adjudication of the lis between the parties. He further submitted that after dismissal of SLP, the plaintiffs are bonafidely taking all the legal steps to defend the Sale Deed and defending the Execution Petition in E.A.No.1 of 2019 in E.P.No.33 of 1987, for protecting their valuable rights based on the Sale Agreement dated 11.06.1981 and pursuant to the same Sale Deed dated 20.08.1981. The plaintiffs are eking livelihood through the income derived from the agricultural lands. Even the Trial Court by an order dated 24.11.2023 allowed the Execution Petition directing to hand over the property, considering the pendency of the abovesaid CRP's to set right the ex parte Decree and Judgment made in first hearing date i.e., 25.11.1981 is the crux of entire lis between the parties. Hence, there is a considerable bonafide delay in filing the present Review Petition before this Court. The delay is 4\7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis neither willful nor wanton but due to the abovesaid reasons. Unless the delay is condoned the entire family would be put to irreparable loss and hardship. 5.The learned counsel for the respondents strongly raised objections by changing the Counsel. They contend that reasons assigned for the delay is not acceptable one nor sufficiently explained. To that effect, he relied upon the Judgment of the Supreme Court in (1)Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and another v.N.Raju Reddiar and another [(1997) 9 Supreme Court Cases 736] and (2)The Executive Officer, A/M.Subramaniaswamy Thirukovil, Tiruppur District vs. M.Nalli Krishnan and others. 6.Heard both sides. 7.Now, the petitioners filed a Review Application to review the orders passed by this Court dated 21.12.2017 in S.A.No.425 of 2002 on the ground that the question of legal propositions has not been discussed by the learned Judge and the entire Judgment and Decree is vitiated and liable to be reviewed. Further, the learned Judge failed to note that the Sale Deed executed between the parties are final and absolute as per Ex.A.1 and Ex.A.8 under Section 60 of the Registration Act, 1908. Considering the submissions on either side, in order to meet the ends of justice, this Court is 5\7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis inclined to allow this application on payment of costs of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) to be paid to the learned counsel for the respondents within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and on such payment, the delay is condoned. 8.List this matter on 10.03.2025 for reporting compliance. 9.Interim order already granted is extended till then. 29-01-2025 mps 6\7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis T.V.THAMILSELVI, J. mps C.M.P.No.18485 of 2024 in REV.APPL.SR.No.17355 of 2024 & C.R.P.Nos.204 and 929 of 2024, C.M.P.Nos.4671, 5548 and 4671 of 2024, C.M.P.Nos.950, 4543 and 2462 of 2024 29.01.2025 7\7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis