Back
THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
ROBIN PHUKAN, J
Smt. Lalengliani W/o Ramdingliana (L) - Appellant
Versus
Sh. David Lallawmawma S/o C. Hrangkunga - Respondent
RSA 4 / 2024
Decided On : 03-03-2025
(A) Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 - Mizo Marriage, Divorce and Inheritance of Property Act, 2014 - Condonation of delay - Appellant's petition for condonation of delay of 1320 days in filing appeal was rejected by the first appellate court, which did not consider the grounds of sufficient cause presented by the appellant. The court emphasized that a liberal approach should be adopted in condonation matters to ensure substantial justice. (Paras 10 , 12 , 18 , 23 )
(B) Condonation of Delay - The court reiterated that delay should be considered with a pragmatic and justice-oriented approach, emphasizing that the length of delay is not the sole criterion, but the explanation for it is paramount. (Paras 11 , 14 )
Facts of the case:
The appellant, as the legal heir of Late Ramdingliana, challenged the issuance of a Heirship Certificate to the respondent regarding a property previously owned by her husband. The appellant claimed her daughter mortgaged the property without her knowledge. (Paras 4 , 18 )
Findings of Court:
The court found sufficient grounds for condonation of the delay and deemed the first appellate court's order arbitrary and perverse. (Paras 23 , 24 )
Issues: The main issues included whether the first appellate court erred in rejecting the condonation application based on the documents presented by the respondent and whether the order was arbitrary. (Paras 5 , 24 )
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the first appellate court failed to consider the appellant's explanations adequately and that there was no deliberate delay, warranting a liberal approach to the condonation of delay. (Paras 23 , 24 )
Result: The second appeal is allowed; the impugned order is set aside, and the RFA is restored for hearing. (Paras 25 , 26 )
JUDGMENT :
ROBIN PHUKAN, J.
Heard Mr. C. Lalfakzuala, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Z. Hnamte, learned counsel for the respondents.
2. This second appeal, under Section 100 of the C.P.C., is directed against the order dated 30.07.2024, passed by the learned Additional District Judge No. III, Aizwal, in CMA No. 185/2024 arising out of RFA No. 05/2024 and order dated 30.07.2024, passed in RFA No. 05/2024.
3. It is to be noted here that vide order dated 30.07.2024, the learned Additional District Judge No. III, Aizwal has rejected the petition filed by the appellant for condonation of delay of 1320 day in filing the connected RFA No. 05/2024.
Background facts:-
4. The background facts leading to filing of this present appeal are briefly stated as under:-
“The husband of the appellant herein, namely, Late Ramdingliana was the owner of a plot of land measuring 0.06 bigha, 81.85 square meters and LSC No. 282 of 1981 was issued to him. The husband of the appellant, suffered demise on 19.08.2009 and being the legal heir, the appellant kept the original copy of the LSC No. 282 of 1981 in her safe custody.
But, at the time of Covid-19, while she was admitted in hospital, she kept the same in the safe custody of her daughter. Then, while she was undergoing treatment, without her knowledge, her daughter obtained a loan of Rs. 3,00,000/- from one person, namely, Shri Thangrotluanga of Thuampuii in the year 2019 and for which, she secretly mortgaged the original copy of LSC No. 282 of 1981.
Thereafter, to redeem the said money her daughter took another loan of Rs. 10,00,000/- from the present respondent, by further mortgaging the said LSC and thereafter, being unable to redeem the said loan to the respondent herein, her daughter in connivance with the respondent herein decided to obtain the Heirship Certificate in his favour in respect of the landed property covered by LSC No. 282 of 1981.
Thereafter, the respondent herein filed one application, under Section 30(3) of the Mizo Marriage, Divorce and Inheritance of Property Act, 2014 before the learned trial court for issuing one Heirship Certificate in respect of a landed property, covered by LSC No. 282 of 1981, situated at Chanmari West, measuring 0.06 bigha 81.85 square meters, left by Late Ramdingliana.
Thereafter, the learned trial court, vide order dated 24.07.2020, had issued the Heirship Certificate to the respondent considering the documents placed on the record including Death Certificate of Late Ramdingllana; photo copy of LSC; photo copy of Voters ID; No Objection Letter from Ms. Lalengliani, wife of Late Ramdingliana and Ms. Lungtiawil, daughter of Late Ramdingliana; and acknowledgement letter issued by Secretary Local Council Chanmari West, Aizawl.
Thereafter, on 04.01.2024, the respondent herein approached the appellant and informed her that the landed property covered by LSC No. 282 of 1981 belongs to him. Then, she inquired about the matter and came to know that the respondent has obtained the heirship certificate and got the land mutated in his name.
Thereafter, the petitioner had decided to challenge the aforesaid order, by filing one regular first appeal. However, there was delay of 1320 days in filing the same. It is the pleaded case of the appellant herein that in fact there was delay of 514 days only after exclusion of the period, from 15.03.2020 to 30.05.2022, due to exemption granted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Suo Muto Case No. 03 of 2020. Thereafter, one appeal was preferred along with one condonation petition under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonain the delay in preferring the connected appeal before the learned Additional District Judge No. III, Aizawl and after hearing learned counsel for both the parties, the learned first appellate court had dismissed the petition for condoning the delay in preferring the connected appeal, vide order dated 30.07.2024, in CMA No. 185/2024 arising out of RFA No. 05/2024.”
5. Thereafter, being aggrieved
The court emphasized that the approach to condonation of delay should be liberal and justice-oriented, focusing on the explanation provided rather than the mere length of delay.
The court emphasized that sufficient cause must be shown for condoning delay in appeals, advocating a liberal approach while also requiring satisfactory explanations for excessive delays.
The court emphasized that sufficient cause must be shown for condoning delay in appeals, advocating a liberal approach while ensuring timely legal action.
The court emphasized that while condoning delay, a pragmatic approach must balance the rights of parties, and costs may be imposed to ensure fairness.
The Court must balance the need for substantial justice against the necessity of adhering to procedural timelines, requiring satisfactory explanations for delays.
The importance of truthfulness and genuineness in setting out the grounds of delay in an application for condonation of delay.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
