STATE OF KERALA Vs. RETNAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) State is the appellant. Respondent is the plaintiff. Respondent filed O.S.112/86 on the file of Munsiff Court, Punalur claiming a decree for declaration of her title perfected by adverse possession and permanent prohibitory injunction. It was contended by respondent that plaint schedule property, having an extent of 20 cents has been in the uninterrupted possession of the family of the respondent for more than 100 years and it was also divided among other properties in the partition and was allotted to the respondent under Ext.A1 settlement deed dated 25.9.67 and therefore she is entitled to a decree for declaration of title and consequential injunction. Appellant filed a written statement admitting that respondent and her predecessor have been in possession of the plaint schedule property for more than 50 years, though it was contended that the said possession was not adverse. Learned Munsiff on the evidence granted a decree as prayed for. It was challenged before Sub Court, Kottarakkara in A.S.22/90. The appeal was filed with I.A.740/90, an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act, to condone the delay of 690 days in filing the appeal. Learned Sub Judge as per order dated 13.12.96 holding that no evidence was adduced to establish sufficient reason to condone the delay, dismissed the application. Consequently the appeal was dismissed. This Second Appeal was filed challenging the dismissal of the appeal and the order in I.A.749/90, raising a contention that learned Sub Judge should have condoned the delay.

(2.) Learned counsel appearing for appellant and respondent were heard.

(3.) Relying on the decision of the Apex Court in Collector, Land Acquisition Anantnag v. Katiji (AIR 1987 SC 1353) learned Government pleader argued that the State represents the collective cause of the community and does not deserve a litigant non grata status and the reason for delay in filing the appeal was the necessity to get opinion from different departments as only the State was impleaded in the suit and therefore liberal approach should have been taken and the delay should have been condoned and the appeal should have been admitted. Learned counsel appearing for respondent argued that no valid reason, much less sufficient reason was shown for the delay and administrative delay by itself is insufficient to condone the delay and learned Sub Judge rightly dismissed the application and consequently the appeal.