IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) No. OF 2017
(Petition under Article 136 of the Constitution of India against the
Impugned Final Judgment and order dated 22.09.2016 in Civil
Revision Petition NPD (MD) No.1913 of 2017 passed by the
Madurai Bench of the Hon’ble High Court of Madras)
BETWEEN
Position of the parties
In the High In this
Court Hon’ble Court
M. Mohammed Athiff
S/o. M. Mohamed Farooque
316 B-1, Haneefa Nagar
K.P. Road, Nagercoil,
Agateeswaram Taluk
Kanyakumari District Petitioner Petitioner
Versus
1. P. Sankaralingam
S/o Ponnam Perumal Nadar
D.No. 35/B5, Sarakkalvilai,
Edalakudy Post,
Vadiveeswaram Village,
Agateeswaram Taluk, Respondent Respondent
Kanyakumari District No.1 No.1
2. Krishnavadivoo Ammal
W/o. Thavasi Nadar
Gandhipuram,
Parakkai and Post,
Madhusoothanapuram Village
Agateeswaram Taluk Respondent Respondent
Kanyalumari village No.2 No.2
3. Murugananthamathi
D/o. Krishnavadivoo Ammal
Gandhipuram,
Parakkai and Post,
Madhusoothanapuram Village
Agateeswaram Taluk Respondent Respondent
Kanyalumari village No.3 No.3
4. Shahibha
W/o Mohamed Ali,
No. 78, Pallitheru
Edalakudy, Kottar Post,
Nagercoil – 2 Respondent Respondent
Vadiveeswaram Village No.4 No.4
PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 136 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF
INDIA
To
The Hon’ble Chief Justice of India and his Companion
Justices of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.
The Special Leave Petition of the Petitioners above named:
MOST RESPECTFULLY SHEWETH:
1. That the instant Petition for grant of Special Leave to Appeal
under Article 136 of the Constitution of India is directed against the
impugned final order dated22.09.2016 passed in Civil Revision
Petition NPD (MD) No.1913 of 2017 by the Madurai Bench of the
High Court of Madras, whereby the Hon’ble High Court dismissed
the appeal of the Petitioner. While passing the Impugned Judgment,
the Hon’ble High Court has affirmed the order passed by the ld.
Principal Sub-Judge, Nagercoil in I.A. no. 45 of 2015 in unnumbered
Appeal – ASSR 18 of 2014.
2. QUESTIONS OF LAW:
The following questions of the law arise for consideration by this
Hon’ble Court:
(I) Could the courts below refuse to hear an appeal only on
the ground of delay when the petitioner had demonstrated
his lack of knowledge of the decree affecting his title to the
property, especially in light of the judgment of this Court in
Bhagmal & Ors. v. Kunwar Lal & Ors. reported in (2010) 12
SCC 159 where it was held that Limitation is deemed to
have started from date of knowledge of decree?
(II) Whether the Courts below could ignore the bonafide status of
the Petitioner when the Encumbrance Certificate issued by
the Registration Department records the transfer of the title
to him from the vendor before the decree is recorded in the
same?
3. DECLARATION IN TERMS OF RULE 4(2) :
The Petitioner states that no other petition seeking leave to appeal
has been filed by him against the impugned judgment and order.
4. DECLARATION IN TERMS OF RULE 6 :
That Annexures P- to P- produced alongwith the Special Leave
Petition are true copies of the pleadings/documents which formed
part of the records of the case in the Court/Tribunal below against
whose order the leave to appeal is sought for in this petition.
5. GROUNDS:
5.1 Because the Courts below erred in not applying the provisions
of Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act correctly to the facts of the present
case.
5.2 Because the Courts below did not appreciate that the delay
was because the Petitioner is a bonafide purchaser for value without
notice of the decree dated 11.10.2011.
5.4 Because the Petitioner is a bonafide purchaser who had no
knowledge of the judgment and decree dated 11.10.2011 against
his predecessor in title until 3 years after date of such decree.
5.5 Because the Petitioner had shown good cause for the delay of
1073 days in filing the appeal
5.6 Because the Appeal is the only remedy left with the Petitioner
as none of the defendants in the suit have filed an appeal
challenging the decree and order.
5.7 Because grave injustice and irreparable damage would be
caused to the Petitioner if he is not heard in appeal
6. GROUNDS FOR INTERIM RELIEF:
(A) That the Petitioners has a good case on merits and therefore
balance of convenience lies in his favour for the grant of interim
order as prayed for.
(B) That the Petitioner is apprehensive that the Respondent no. 1
may create third party interests by selling off the property to third
parties.
(C). That a grave injustice and irreparable damage would be caused
to the Petitioners herein if the status quo is not granted.
7. MAIN PRAYER:
The Petitioner, therefore, prays that :
A) The Petitioners be granted Special Leave to Appeal under
Article 136 of the Constitution of India against the Impugned
Final Judgment and order dated 22.09.2016 in Civil Revision
Petition NPD (MD) No.1913 of 2017 passed by the Madurai
Bench of the Hon’ble High Court of Madras.
(B) Pass any other order and/or directions as this Hon’ble Court
may deem fit and proper.
8. PRAYER FOR INTERIM RELIEF:
A) Direct the Respondents to maintain status quo and not create
any third party rights to the land in question.
B). Pass any such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may
deem fit and proper
