KUMARI AMMA Vs. KAVUKUTTY AMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question in these petitions is whether the belief of a defendant, the suit against whom has been dismissed, that she was not aggrieved and therefore need not prefer an appeal against the judgment of dismissal of the suit constitutes "sufficient cause" within the meaning of S.5 of the Limitation Act.

(2.) Three suits O. S. 105/1957 and O. S. 112/1957 were tried together by the learned Principal Sub Judge, Alleppey. The petitioner Kumari Amma was the defendant No.6 in O. S. Nos. 105/1957 and 111/1957. She was the defendant No. 20 in O. S. No. 112/1957. Suit No.105/1957 was for declaration of title of the plaintiffs. O. S. 111/1957 was for maintenance and allotment of shares to the plaintiffs. O. S. 112/1957 was for maintenance,

(3.) A. S. No. 146/1991 against the decree in O. S. 105/1957 by this very petitioner was filed within the period of limitation prescribed by law. A. S. No. 581/1992 is by this petitioner against the decree in O. S. 112/1957. A. S. No. 584/1992, also by this petitioner is against the decree in O. S. No. 111/1957. These appeals have been filed beyond the period of limitation prescribed by law. The delay is of 12 years, one month and 15 days. C.M.P. No.7885 of 1992 and C. M. P. No. 7898 of 1992, under S.5 of the Limitation Act, are for condonation of the delay in filing A. S. Nos. 581/1992 and 584/1992 respectively. These C.M.Ps. were heard together as they raise common questions.