Judgment F.M. Ibrahim Kalifulla, J. 1. M.P.No.2 of 2009 has been filed to condone the delay of 561 days in filing the Appeal against the judgment and decree of the Additional District Court (Fast Track Court-I) at Salem, dated 12. 2008 in O.S.No.13 of 2004. 2. This Application is opposed at the instance of Respondents 1 and 2 the First Respondent is a minor, who is represented by his Mother and next friend, the Second Respondent. Respondents 1 and 2 filed a Suit for Partition in the year 1994 in O.S.No.312 of 1995, which came to be transferred to the file of the Additional District Judge, where it was re-numbered as O.S.No.13 of 2004. The Suit was for Partition as against the husband and her mother-in-law, who were arrayed as Defendants 1 and 2 in the Suit and who are no more as on date. In fact, prior to the filing of the partition Suit, the husband of the First Respondent filed H.M.O.P.No.38 of 1994 for divorce, which was dismissed, while the Second Respondent’s Petition in F.C.O.P.No.268 of 1996 for restitution of conjugal rights was allowed. The maintenance ordered in the said Proceedings was also due and payable to the First and Second Respondent herein. Though the Suit came to be dismissed for default on 22. 2003, the same was restored to file on 112. 2003 and necessary Applications were filed by Respondents 1 and 2. 3. It is relevant to state that during the pendency of the partition Suit, interim injunction from alienation of the suit schedule properties was granted on 19. 1999, which also got revived on the restoration of the Suit on 112. 2003. Under Exs.A17, 18, 19, 51 & 56, dated 20.1.1996, 212. 1993, 112. 1998 and 19. 2004, paper publications were stated to have been effected at the instance of Respondents 1 and 2 making specific reference to the Court order of injunction restraining the husband and mother-in-law from alienating the suit schedule properties. In the above said background the First Respondent herein stated to have purchased the “B” schedule property from the deceased husband and mother-in-law on 210. 2004. The husband died on 10. 2005 and the mother-in-law pre-deceased him on 22. 2005. Necessary amendment was carried out in the Plaint after demise on 11. 2006. Thereafter, the First Petitioner sold a part of the “B” schedule property to the Second Petitioner on 22. 2004. The husband died on 10. 2005 and the mother-in-law pre-deceased him on 22. 2005. Necessary amendment was carried out in the Plaint after demise on 11. 2006. Thereafter, the First Petitioner sold a part of the “B” schedule property to the Second Petitioner on 22. 2007. Preliminary decree in the Suit came to be passed on 12. 2008. The First and Second Respondents filed necessary Application for final decree of “B” schedule property on 19. 2008. Since in respect of the other suit schedule properties, the aggrieved parties stated to have preferred an Appeal before this Court, which is pending, in the final decree proceedings, an Advocate Commissioner inspected the property on 18. 2009. The Petitioners filed a Petition seeking impleadment in the final decree proceeding on 212. 2008 itself. The said Applications were initially returned on 21. 2009, which was re-presented on 12. 2009 and 12. 2009. However, the final decree came to be passed on 9. 2009. The Petitioners’ Application for impleadment for getting themselves impleaded was subsequently represented on 110. 2009, which was ultimately rejected by the Court below on 20.10.2009 on the ground that the Petition was not maintainable. 4. Consideration of the above dates and events disclose that there was an injunction as against the deceased-husband and the mother-in-law, which was operating initially from 19. 2009 and after the revival of the Suit from 112. 2003. Therefore, the alleged sale of “B” schedule property on 210. 2004 was in violation of the order of interim injunction. Be that as it may, when the Petitioners have approached the Trial Court for getting themselves impleaded in the final decree proceedings in the month of December, 2008, it will have to be taken that they were fully aware of the preliminary decree, which came to be passed as early as on 12. 2008. If that was the position, the present claim of the Petitioners that they were not aware of various other developments including passing of the final decree on 9. 2009 cannot be accepted for the mere statement made in the Affidavit filed in support of this Application. It is stated before us that the property is a house property situated in an area of about 5600 sq. ft in sankagiri Town of Salem District. We were also informed that the property is worth more than 35 lakhs as on date. It is stated before us that the property is a house property situated in an area of about 5600 sq. ft in sankagiri Town of Salem District. We were also informed that the property is worth more than 35 lakhs as on date. One other relevant factor, which is to be borne in mind is that the Second Respondent is the wife of the deceased-First Defendant and the First Respondent, the minor child of the deceased-First Defendant have been fighting this litigation for their survival right from the year 1994 onward. It is also not disputed that though the First and Second Respondent had secured order of maintenance from the deceased-First Defendant and the maintenance OP was ordered in favour of First and Second Respondent, which was also confirmed by this Court in the order dated 11. 2001, yet they have not seen the colour of the coin even as on date. They must be given the right to have some hold over the properties for which they are legally entitled to by virtue of the death of Defendants 1 and 2. In respect of “A” schedule properties, having regard to the pendency of the proceedings in the First Appeal at the instance of the other Defendants, Respondents 1 and 2 have not been able to derive any benefit from the said properties. 5. In such circumstances, we are of the considered view that interest of justice can be subserved by imposing some stringent conditions for condoning the delay of 561 days in filing this Appeal, so that the First and Second Respondent can at least be provided with some monetary benefits to keep their heart and soul together. The First Respondent being minor, his education expenses have also to be made by the Second Respondent-window. Since substantial rights are involved we are convinced that there is some explanation offered by the Petitioner for the delay involved, the delay can be condoned by imposing some stringent conditions. 6. Taking all these into consideration and at the same time in order to give an opportunity for the Petitioners/Appellants to agitate their right, as to the preliminary decree dated 12. 2008, while condoning the delay, we direct the Petitioner/Appellants to deposit a sum of Rs.40 lakhs in the Indian Bank, Sankagiri. Such deposit should be made within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 2008, while condoning the delay, we direct the Petitioner/Appellants to deposit a sum of Rs.40 lakhs in the Indian Bank, Sankagiri. Such deposit should be made within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such deposit being made in fixed deposit in Indian Bank in the name of the Second Respondent, it shall, however, be to the credit of O.S.No.13 of 2004. From and out of such deposit, the periodical interest shall be paid to the Second Respondent every month on or before 10th. The disbursement of the fixed deposit amount will depend upon the final outcome of the First Appeal. If the Petitioners/Appellants fail to comply with the condition imposed, the benefit granted in this order will automatically cases to operate. 7. In the light of the above conditions imposed in this order, the learned Counsel for Respondents 1 and 2 undertake that they will not press the Execution Petition awaiting the compliance of the condition imposed. 8. M.P. No.2 of 2009: The Respondents 3 to 10 are not pressing this Petition. Both the Petitions are disposed of accordingly.