KUNJAMMA Vs. CHELLAPPAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendant in a suit for specific performance of a contract for sale of immovable property on the basis of Ext. A2 sale agreement, a lady belonging to a scheduled Caste, is the appellant and was the appellant before the lower appellate court also. Her defence before the Trial Court was that she has not executed Ext. A2 and that Ext. A2 is a fabricated document. Even though the plaintiff in the suit did not examine either of the attesting witnesses to Ext. A2, the Trial Court decreed the suit on the basis of the evidence adduced by the parties.

(2.) The present appellant preferred A. S. No. 28 of 1985 before the District Court. During the pendency of that appeal, the original plaintiff who was the 1st respondent in the appeal died. The present appellant filed I. A. 1363 of 1988 for impleading one Chellappan, the 1st respondent herein as additional respondent in the appeal on the basis that he is the only legal heir of the deceased original plaintiff. While that I.A. was pending, Lilly, the 2nd respondent came forward with I.A. No. 1569 of 1988 seeking her own impleadment claiming that she is the widow of Pappachan, a predeceased son of the original plaintiff Chellamma, and that she is the legal heir of the original plaintiff. In I. A. 1569 of 1988 the appellant filed objections. It was contended that Chellappan was the only legal heir of Chellamma and that the relationship claimed by the petitioner in I.A. 1569 of 1988 with the original plaintiff is not correct. The appellant produced documents and examined witnesses.

(3.) The court passed a common order dismissing both the applications and directed the appellant to file a fresh impleadment application impleading all the legal heirs of deceased Chellamma. The case was accordingly posted to 20-12-1990 and thereafter to 7.1.1991. On 7.1.1991 the case was called when the advocate for the appellant was not present before court. The court dismissed the appeal on the reason that no further steps were taken in spite of directions in that regard and that the appeal stood abated due to non impleadment of the legal heirs of deceased 1st respondent. On 7.2.1991 the appellant filed I.A. 258 of 1991 seeking review. The appellant's case is that she became unwell and bedridden after she had filed I.A. 258 of 1991 and therefore it was not possible for her to go over to the court or to get in touch with her lawyer. According to her, she recovered from the illness only on 29.10.1991. On making enquiries she learnt that I.A. 258 of 1991 stood already dismissed for default on 27.2.1991. Thereafter, on 1.11.1991 the appellant filed four applications: I.A. 2228 of 1991 for restoration, I.A. 2229 of 1991 seeking condonation of delay, I.A. 2230 of 1991 for setting aside abatement of the appeal and I.A. 2232 of 1991 seeking impleadment of the legal heirs of the deceased 1st respondent. According to the appellant, all the four applications were dismissed by the court on 11.11.1991, again on default. This happened, according to her, because the appellant had fallen ill in the meanwhile and had to be confined to bed from 15.11.1991 till April, 1994.