The court upheld the significance of promoting settlements in family disputes, allowing restoration of partition proceedings following a mutual agreement between parties, despite initially excessive delay in appeal.

ORDER :

This civil revision petition has been filed challenging the order dated 23.04.2024 passed by the learned District Judge, The Nilgiris District at Udhagamandalam, dismissing the application in I.A.No.02 of 2024 filed by the defendants 1, 3 and 4 in the suit, under Order XLI and Rules (3) and (4) of CPC r/w Section 5 of the LIMITATION ACT , seeking to condone the delay of 2886 days in filing the appeal against the judgement and preliminary decree dated 18.08.2015 made in O.S.No.107 of 2014 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge at Udhagamandalam.

2. The respondents 5 and 6 herein are the plaintiffs 2 & 3; the respondents 7 to 9 are the legal heirs of the deceased 1^st plaintiff - Papathy; the revision petitioners herein are defendants 1, 3 and 4; the respondents 1 to 4 herein are the legal heirs of the deceased 2^nd defendant - K.Dharmaraj in the suit.

3. The array of parties in the delay condonation petition in I.A.No.02 of 2024 in A.S. CFR No.4028 of 2023 on the file of the learned District Judge, Udhagamandalamm, The Nilgiris District, is furnished hereunder for better and easy understanding:-

I.A.No.02 of 2024

in A.S. (SR) No.4028 of 2023

K.Arjunraj (1^st Defendant)

2. K.Devaraj (3^rd Defendant)

K.Haridass (4^th Defendant) ….. Petitioners/Appellants

-Versus-

1. K.Dharmaraj (Since deceased) (2^nd Defendant)

2. Ruckmani (LR of the deceased 2^nd Defendant)

3. D.Vijayakumar (LR of the deceased 2^nd Defendant)

4. D.Mohanambal (LR of the deceased 2^nd Defendant)

5. D.Senthil Kumar (LR of the deceased 2^nd Defendnat)

6. Papathy (Since deceased) (1^st Plaintiff)

7. Saraswathi (2^nd plaintiff)

8. Suseela (3^rd plaintiff)

9. Nithyanandam (LR of the deceased 1^st plaintiff)

10. Vani (LR of the deceased 1^st plaintiff)

11. Tamil Selvi (LR of the deceased 1^st plaintiff) ….. Respondents/Respondents

4. For the sake of convenience, the parties in this revision petition will hereinafter be referred to as per their array in the suit.

5.1 Tmt.Papathy (deceased 1^st plaintiff) along with her sisters -Saraswathi and Suseela, the plaintiffs 2 and 3, filed a suit in O.S.No.107 of 2014 for (i) partition and separate possession of the suit properties into 7 equal shares and allotment of 3/7^th share in favour of them, by metes and bounds, taking into consideration the nature of the properties and its good and bad soil, nature of construction, road approach and other related factors and (ii) for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to effect such division and allotment of properties as per the preliminary decree. The plaintiffs are the sisters of the defendants.

5.2 The immovable properties which are subject matter in the partition suit are as follows:

SCHEDULE OF PROPERTIES

SCHEDULE - I

Registration District : The Nilgiris

Registration Sub-District : Kotagiri

Town or Village : Kagguchi Revenue Village

(Schedule No: 1 – Item Nos.1 to 4 comprising totally 3.30 Acres of land together with buildings thereon as per the partition deed dated 09.12.1994 as per Schedule No.1)

SCHEDULE – II

Registration : The Nilgiris

Registration Sub-District : Coonoor

Town or Village : Hulical Revenue Village

Survey Nos. : 54/2 and 54/2

Extent : 0.03 Acres of land together with the buildings thereon bearing D.Nos.6/80, 6/80A and 6/81 with Hulical Panchayat

SCHEDULE III

Registration District : Gopichettipalayam

Registration Sub District : Thokka Naicken Palayam

Town or Village : Vaniputtur

Survey Number : 302/5

Extent : 246 ½ square feet of land together with a building

5.3 It appears that though the defendants entered appearance in the suit through their co