Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Sukhoo Sahu v. Ram Ji And Another - SECOND APPEAL No. 2039 of 1977 [2006] RD-AH 5042 (2 March 2006)


This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).


Court No. 9.

Second Appeal No. 2039 of 1977.

Sukhoo Sahu                           ...     Plaintiff-Appellant.


Sri Ram Ji and another            ...     Defendants-Respondents.

Hon. Sunil Ambwani, J.

In this Second Appeal pending in this Court since 1977, arising out of suit for partition which was dismissed by both the  Courts, and the plea of adverse possession was rejected, the plaintiff-appellant died on 15.8.1979.  His son Ayodhya Prasad, pre-deceased him and now his grand sons have filed an application to set aside the abatement and to substitute them as heirs of the sole appellant.  The substitution application was filed on 26.3.2004 i.e. 25 years after the death of the appellant.

The application for condonation of delay states that the applicants are semi literate persons unacquainted with the legal position of the case and that after the death of their  father and grand father, the matter involved in the second appeal had come to an end.  They were also not aware of the address of the counsel.  It is only when they received a letter dated 18.3.2004 from their counsel that they acquired knowledge of the pendency of the Second Appeal.

I have heard Sri Satya Narain learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Arvind Kumar for the respondents.

This second appeal had abated 27 years ago.  The grounds taken in the delay condonation application does not go together with he plea of adverse possession taken by the grand father of the applicants.  If they were in possession of the


property, they must have had knowledge of the pendency of the second appeal, and if they were not, they cannot succeed in the second appeal.  Learned counsel for the applicants states that they were living in a tenanted property which makes their position worse.  

Further I find that the same Sri Ram Narain, the applicant who has  pleaded ignorance of the pendency of the second appeal, had sworn an affidavit in support of an application filed on 9.2.1999 for recording death of the respondent no. 2 and for substitution of her heirs. He was as such fully aware of the pendency of the second appeal and has sworn a false affidavit before this Court feigning ignorance its pendency.

The delay condonation application as well as substitution applications are rejected.  The second appeal had abated long ago and is accordingly dismissed.

Dt. 2.3.2006.



Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites


dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.