'Her Own Son Colluded With Plaintiff,' SC Condones 2112 Days Delay On Plea By Septuagenarian Woman

The Supreme Court has condoned delay of 2112 days in a matter arising out a suit for partition and separate possession on a plea by a septuagenarian woman, who claimed that her son colluded with the plaintiffs and kept her in dark about the order passed in review and the subsequent developments.

A bench of Justices Pankaj Mithal and Joymalya Bagchi allowed an appeal filed by Methkupally Venkatamma and directed for hearing the review application on merits after giving due notice to all the parties concerned.

"It is common knowledge that in family disputes elderly women rely on their husbands or sons to look after their interest in litigation. When a case of betrayal of such trust is pleaded in a delay condonation application, the court is required to view the same with a sympathetic slant,'' the bench said.

As per facts of the matter, the respondent Nos.1 and 2 filed a suit before District Judge seeking partition and separate possession of certain extent of land parcels situated at Pocharam Village, Ghatkeswar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. A preliminary decree was passed on March 28, 2011.

The appellant being the wife of one late M Mohan Reddy and other descendants being defendants in the suit, preferred an appeal against the preliminary partition decree. Holding the suit property was neither joint nor a partible estate the division bench allowed the appeal. The 1st and 2nd respondents took out a review application which by the impugned order came to be allowed.

Before the Top Court, the respondents contended that an inordinate delay of 2112 days in filing the appeal has not been adequately explained. All the appellants before the High Court were aware of the institution of the review proceedings and all of them were represented by their counsel in the said proceedings. Apart from the appellant, none of them have appealed against the impugned order.

The woman's counsel contended that the appellant is a septuagenarian lady and her interest in the proceeding was looked after by her eldest son, that is, the 3rd respondent.

He alleged the 3rd respondent colluded with the 1st and 2nd respondents, that is, the plaintiffs and kept the appellant in dark about the order passed in review and the subsequent developments. Only in August, 2022, she came to know of these facts through some of her relatives when the special leave petition filed at the behest of the 3rd respondent, was withdrawn. Thereafter, she collected the case papers and filed the special leave petition in November, 2022.

"Ordinarily, we would not be inclined to condone an inordinate delay of 2112 days but the averments in the application for condonation of delay and the submissions made before us show the 3rd respondent on whom the appellant had relied to look after her interest in the proceedings had betrayed her interest and colluded with the 1st and 2nd respondents. She was kept in the dark with regard to the review order as well as the subsequent steps in the appeal,'' the bench said.

The court also noted though the appellant appeared to have been represented by a counsel, it is evident from the factual matrix the said counsel was instructed by the 3rd respondent against whom she has levelled allegation of collusion with the 1st and 2nd respondents.

The bench also noted the impugned order is a cryptic one and does not even record the submissions on behalf of the appellant in whose favour the appeal had been allowed and the suit dismissed.

The court also found force in the submission of her counsel that the 1st and 2nd respondents would not be prejudiced if the review application is remanded for re-hearing on merits.

"That is to say if the review upon re-hearing is dismissed the said respondents would nonetheless be entitled to challenge the original order in appeal but if the cryptic order allowing review is preserved a vital right of the appellant accruing from the appellate order dismissing the suit would be lost forever,'' the bench said.

Setting aside the order impugned, the court directed the review application should be heard on merits after giving due notice to all the parties concerned.

Needless to mention the matter would be disposed of expeditiously without granting unnecessary adjournments to any of the parties, the court clarified.

Case Title: Methkupally Venkatamma v. M Padamma & Ors.

Judgment Date: August 19, 2025

Bench: Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Joymalya Bagchi