Allahabad High Court
Smt. Savitri Devi And Another vs Madan Lal Sharma (Deceased) And Another on 27 January, 2010
Author: Rakesh Sharma
Bench: Rakesh Sharma
Court No. - 1 Case :- SECOND APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 35 of 2010 Petitioner :- Smt. Savitri Devi And Another Respondent :- Madan Lal Sharma (Deceased) And Another Petitioner Counsel :- P.C. Pandey Hon'ble Rakesh Sharma,J.
Heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused the materials on record.
This is a highly time barred Second Appeal filed by a lady Smt. Savitri Devi and one Rajendra belonging to Lucknow assailing the judgment and decree passed by the lower Appellate Court on 5th May, 1990.
A dispute arose between one Madan Lal Share and his wife, Smt. Savitri Devi in the year 1987 before the Civil Judge, Varanasi, who filed a Marriage Petition seeking dissolution of his marriage with Smt. Savitri Dvi, declaring it to be null and void. It was alleged by Madan Lal Sharma that Savitri Devi was already married with one Rajendra. Not only this, she was thrice married and lastly married with Madan Lal Sharma, who was widower at that time. A false statement was made to him that the lady was widow having a child whereas, in fact, she was having three children (as per finding recorded by the court below) and her husband was alive.
The Civil Judge had declined to interfere and, therefore, the Suit was dismissed. Against the said judgment, a First Appeal was preferred by Madan Lal Sharma challenging the judgment of the Trial court. The Appeal was allowed and the judgment passed by the learned Civil Judge was set aside. The marriage of Madan Lal Sharma with Savitri Devi was declared as null and void vide judgment and order dated 5th May, 1990.
Thereafter, in the year 1992, Madan had died. Smt. Savitri Devi did nothing right from 1990 uptil now, that is, during 19-20 years to challenge the judgment passed by the lower Appellate court. This Second Appeal has been presented on 7.12.2009 alongwith an application seeking condonation of Delay. In paragraphs 10 to 13 whereof, the appellant has tried to explain delay wherein she has submitted that she had visited Varanasi in the month of August, 2009 and learnt about the fate of the First Appeal, which was decided on 5th May, 1990. After getting the knowledge of this judgment, the appellant came to Allahabad and contacted her lawyer and thereafter the Appeal was prepared.
It is relevant to mention that in Paragraph 15, the appellant has submitted that the plaintiff-respondent no.3, Smt. Sita Devi, wife of Sita Ram, is the real sister of Madan Lal Sharma. At the time of his death, Madan Lal Sharma was residing in the house of Smt. Sita Devi, his sister. Smt. Sita Devi has acquired all the share of the plaintiff-respondent no.2-Madan Lal Sharma. Thus, this paragraph suggests of some property left behind Madan Lal Sharma, who was deceased in the year 1992. It appears that since some property has been left by Madan Lal Sharma, this has prompted the appellant, Smt. Savitri Devi and Rajendra, her alleged husband to approach this Court after lapse of about 19-20 years by filing this Second Appeal to seek claim on the property left behind by late Sri Madan Lal Sharma, who ceased to be husband of the appellant after the unchallenged judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate court on 5th May, 1990. No explanation worth the name has been given as to what was being done by the appellant during all these 19-20 years long period and whether she ever cared to know about the condition of her alleged husband, late Sri Madan Lal Sharma. Did she asked for any sustenance from her alleged husband being an obedient and submissive wife. The appellant also did not take pain to know whether her alleged husband is still alive or dead. Strangely, even the death of her alleged husband is not in the knowledge of the appellant, while residing at Lucknow which is only at a distance of about 265 Kilometers from Varanasi and is well connected by trains and road conveyance. From the materials available on record, it is amply clear that the whole story has been cooked up by the appellant just to grab the property left by late Sri Madan Lal Sharma, whom the appellant never cared during his life time.
In view of the discussions made above, this Court is of the firm view that no cogent and satisfactory explanation has been given for filing this belated Second Appeal and, therefore, this Appeal is not liable to be entertained. Accordingly, the Delay Condonation Application is dismissed. Since the Delay Condonation Application is dismissed, the Second Appeal also stands dismissed.
No order as to cost.
Order Date :- 27.1.2010 bgs/