RULIA SINGH Vs. AMRO BAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This regular second appeal is directed against the concurrent finding of facts and conclusion arrived at by the learned courts below. The learned first appellate Court, while affirming the decree of the learned trial Court dated 22.11.1996, dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs for declaration. It was averred by the plaintiffs that they are the sons of Mangh Singh. According to them, Sunder Singh had died more than 30 years back and they had been in cultivating possession through their ancestors and in a family settlement Kishnai Bai gave them the land in question. However, subsequently, a week prior to filing the suit they came to know that Kishnai Bai in a collusive decree dated 21.4.1992 had given the land in question to Amro Bai, defendant No. 1. The decree being ineffective, they claimed to be owner of the land in possession. The suit was contested by the defendants. Learned trial Court framed four issues and held all the issues against the plaintiffs, as the plaintiffs had failed to prove any cogent and reasonable evidence in support of the case. These findings were affirmed by the learned first appellate Court giving rise to the present second appeal.

(2.) This regular second appeal is barred by time and an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of 296 days' delay has been filed. Thus, I am obliged to deal with the contents of the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay. This application being CM. No.566-C of 1999 reads as under:-

(3.) The application does not disclose any cause much less a sufficient cause for condonation of delay. The law of limitation cannot be applied so liberally that it renders a vested right in another party ineffective. Bona fide and sufficient cause in a condition precedent to the condonation of delay. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of P.K. Ramachandran v. State of Kerala and Anr., (1998-3)120 P.L.R. 605 (S.C.), has held as under:-