9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (12) TMI 1853 - SC - Indian LawsExecution of will in favour of the Plaintiff in respect of the property in suit or not - relief of permanent injunction - HELD THAT - In MAHAVIR SINGH VERSUS NARESH CHANDRA 2000 (11) TMI 1238 - SUPREME COURT , explaining the scope of revision in the matters of acceptance of additional evidence by the lower appellate court interpreting expression or for any other substantial cause in Rule 27 of Order XLI, this Court has held that It is only in the circumstances when the appellate court requires such evidence to pronounce the judgment the necessity to adduce additional evidence would arise and not in any other circumstances. When the first appellate court passed the order on the application filed under Order 41 Rule 27 Code of Civil Procedure, the whole appeal was before it and if the first appellate court is satisfied that additional evidence was not required, we fail to understand as to how the High Court could interfere with such an order Under Section 115 Code of Civil Procedure. Regarding exercise of revisional powers in the matter of allowing the application for additional evidence, when appeal is pending before the lower appellate court, the impugned order passed by the High Court cannot be upheld and the same is set aside. However, to do complete justice between the parties, we think it just and proper to direct the first appellate court to decide the application for additional evidence afresh in the light of observations made by this Court regarding principles on which such an application can be allowed or rejected. It is deemed just and proper to direct the first appellate court to decide the application for additional evidence afresh in the light of observations made by this Court regarding principles on which such an application can be allowed or rejected - appeal disposed off.
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the Will executed by Ayyappan Chettiar. 2. Entitlement of the Plaintiff to the relief of permanent injunction. 3. Admissibility of additional evidence at the appellate stage. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of the Will executed by Ayyappan Chettiar: The Plaintiff claimed that Ayyappan Chettiar executed a Will dated 13.12.1990 in his favor, granting him exclusive possession of the disputed property. The Defendant contested the authenticity of the Will, alleging that the Plaintiff filed the suit to evade partition of the property. The trial court, after examining the evidence, held that the Plaintiff failed to prove the execution of the Will and decided the issue against the Plaintiff. 2. Entitlement of the Plaintiff to the relief of permanent injunction: The Plaintiff sought a permanent injunction to restrain the Defendant from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property. The trial court dismissed the suit based on the finding that the Plaintiff did not prove the Will. Consequently, the relief sought by the Plaintiff was denied. 3. Admissibility of additional evidence at the appellate stage: During the pendency of the appeal (A.S. No. 55 of 2007) before the first appellate court, the Plaintiff filed an application (I.A. No. 3 of 2008) seeking a scientific investigation to verify the authenticity of the Will by comparing signatures. The first appellate court allowed this application, directing the Plaintiff to deposit a fee for the examination. The Defendant challenged this order before the High Court, which set aside the appellate court's order. The Supreme Court examined the provisions under Section 107(1)(d) read with Rule 27 of Order XLI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which allows additional evidence in three exceptional circumstances: - If the trial court refused to admit evidence that ought to have been admitted. - If, despite due diligence, the evidence was not within the party's knowledge or could not be produced at the trial stage. - If the appellate court requires the evidence to pronounce judgment or for any other substantial cause. The Court emphasized that additional evidence should not be allowed to fill lacunae in the case and must meet one of the specified conditions. The Supreme Court cited several precedents, including K.R. Mohan Reddy v. Net Work Inc., North Eastern Railway Admn. v. Bhagwan Das, and Union of India v. Ibrahim Uddin, to underscore the limited scope for admitting additional evidence at the appellate stage. The Supreme Court concluded that the High Court, in exercising its revisional powers, should not have interfered with the first appellate court's order at an interim stage. The Court directed the first appellate court to reconsider the application for additional evidence afresh, in light of the principles laid down for such matters. Conclusion: The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order and remanded the matter to the first appellate court to decide the application for additional evidence afresh. The appeal was disposed of without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, ensuring that justice is rendered based on a thorough examination of the evidence. No order as to costs was made.
|
