IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) No. OF 2017

(Petition under Article 136 of the Constitution of India against the

Impugned Final Judgment and order dated 22.09.2016 in Civil
Revision Petition NPD (MD) No.1913 of 2017 passed by the
Madurai Bench of the Hon’ble High Court of Madras)
BETWEEN
Position of the parties
In the High In this
Court Hon’ble Court

M. Mohammed Athiff
S/o. M. Mohamed Farooque
316 B-1, Haneefa Nagar
K.P. Road, Nagercoil,
Agateeswaram Taluk
Kanyakumari District Petitioner Petitioner

Versus

1. P. Sankaralingam
S/o Ponnam Perumal Nadar
D.No. 35/B5, Sarakkalvilai,
Edalakudy Post,
Vadiveeswaram Village,
Agateeswaram Taluk, Respondent Respondent
Kanyakumari District No.1 No.1

2. Krishnavadivoo Ammal
W/o. Thavasi Nadar
Gandhipuram,
Parakkai and Post,
Madhusoothanapuram Village
Agateeswaram Taluk Respondent Respondent
Kanyalumari village No.2 No.2

3. Murugananthamathi
D/o. Krishnavadivoo Ammal
Gandhipuram,
Parakkai and Post,
Madhusoothanapuram Village
Agateeswaram Taluk Respondent Respondent
Kanyalumari village No.3 No.3
4. Shahibha
W/o Mohamed Ali,
No. 78, Pallitheru
Edalakudy, Kottar Post,
Nagercoil – 2 Respondent Respondent
Vadiveeswaram Village No.4 No.4

PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 136 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF

INDIA

To

The Hon’ble Chief Justice of India and his Companion

Justices of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.

The Special Leave Petition of the Petitioners above named:

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHEWETH:

1. That the instant Petition for grant of Special Leave to Appeal

under Article 136 of the Constitution of India is directed against the

impugned final order dated22.09.2016 passed in Civil Revision

Petition NPD (MD) No.1913 of 2017 by the Madurai Bench of the

High Court of Madras, whereby the Hon’ble High Court dismissed

the appeal of the Petitioner. While passing the Impugned Judgment,

the Hon’ble High Court has affirmed the order passed by the ld.

Principal Sub-Judge, Nagercoil in I.A. no. 45 of 2015 in unnumbered

Appeal – ASSR 18 of 2014.

2. QUESTIONS OF LAW:
The following questions of the law arise for consideration by this

Hon’ble Court:

(I) Could the courts below refuse to hear an appeal only on

the ground of delay when the petitioner had demonstrated

 his lack of knowledge of the decree affecting his title to the

property, especially in light of the judgment of this Court in

Bhagmal & Ors. v. Kunwar Lal & Ors. reported in (2010) 12

SCC 159 where it was held that Limitation is deemed to

have started from date of knowledge of decree?

(II) Whether the Courts below could ignore the bonafide status of

the Petitioner when the Encumbrance Certificate issued by

the Registration Department records the transfer of the title

to him from the vendor before the decree is recorded in the

same?

3. DECLARATION IN TERMS OF RULE 4(2) :

The Petitioner states that no other petition seeking leave to appeal

has been filed by him against the impugned judgment and order.

4. DECLARATION IN TERMS OF RULE 6 :

That Annexures P- to P- produced alongwith the Special Leave

Petition are true copies of the pleadings/documents which formed

part of the records of the case in the Court/Tribunal below against

whose order the leave to appeal is sought for in this petition.

5. GROUNDS:

5.1 Because the Courts below erred in not applying the provisions

of Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act correctly to the facts of the present

case.
5.2 Because the Courts below did not appreciate that the delay

was because the Petitioner is a bonafide purchaser for value without

notice of the decree dated 11.10.2011.

5.4 Because the Petitioner is a bonafide purchaser who had no

knowledge of the judgment and decree dated 11.10.2011 against

his predecessor in title until 3 years after date of such decree.

5.5 Because the Petitioner had shown good cause for the delay of

1073 days in filing the appeal

5.6 Because the Appeal is the only remedy left with the Petitioner

as none of the defendants in the suit have filed an appeal

challenging the decree and order.

5.7 Because grave injustice and irreparable damage would be

caused to the Petitioner if he is not heard in appeal

6. GROUNDS FOR INTERIM RELIEF:

(A) That the Petitioners has a good case on merits and therefore

balance of convenience lies in his favour for the grant of interim

order as prayed for.

(B) That the Petitioner is apprehensive that the Respondent no. 1

may create third party interests by selling off the property to third

parties.
(C). That a grave injustice and irreparable damage would be caused

to the Petitioners herein if the status quo is not granted.

7. MAIN PRAYER:

The Petitioner, therefore, prays that :

A) The Petitioners be granted Special Leave to Appeal under

Article 136 of the Constitution of India against the Impugned

Final Judgment and order dated 22.09.2016 in Civil Revision

Petition NPD (MD) No.1913 of 2017 passed by the Madurai

Bench of the Hon’ble High Court of Madras.

(B) Pass any other order and/or directions as this Hon’ble Court

may deem fit and proper.

8. PRAYER FOR INTERIM RELIEF:

A) Direct the Respondents to maintain status quo and not create

any third party rights to the land in question.

B). Pass any such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may

deem fit and proper