Supreme Court Of India
RUMA PALANDARUN KUMAR, JJ.
HARJU (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH HIS PROPOSED LEGAL HEIRS AND OTHERS-Appellants
Versus
PHULARI (SMT) ALIAS CHURMARAWATI AND OTHERS-Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 6088 of 2004,
Decided on September 13,2004
Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Section 100 and Order 41, Rule 27 - Application under Order 41 Rule 27- Non consideration of in second appeal - Suit against appellantt brother claiming the property to be joint- Suit dismissed holding that property belonged only to appellant- Appellate court held the property to be joint and decreed the suit- The same affirmed by High Court- Application of appellant under Order 41 Rule 27 not considered-Held the application should have been disposed of either by rejecting it or allowing it by the High Court before deciding the appeal- Accordingly, decision of the High Court set aside and matter remanded to the High Court solely for the purpose of considering the application of the appellants under Order 41 Rule 27 and to reconsider the appeal on merit- [Paras 4 and 5]
ORDER
1.Leave granted.
2. Bhuni and Jhagru were two brothers. A dispute arose in respect of certain property between the heirs of Bhuni on one hand and the heirs of Jhagru on the other. The heirs of Jhagru filed a suit claiming a share in the property. The suit was contested by the heirs of Bhuni. The question was whether the property belonged to Bhuni and Jhagru jointly or whether it belonged to Bhuni alone. The trial court held that the property belonged only to Bhuni and accordingly dismissed the suit. The first appellate court however took the view that it belonged to both Bhuni and Jhagru. This view was affirmed by the High Court in second appeal.
3. The heirs of Bhuni are now in appeal before us. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants had drawn the attention of the High
Court to an application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure which had been filed on 12-9-1989 before the High Court by which the appellants had sought to produce a sale deed in favour of Bhuni and a patta of the suit land in favour of Bhuni.
4. The grievance of the appellants in this appeal is that despite having noted the aforesaid, the High Court did not decide the application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure at all. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents has submitted that the High Courts jurisdiction under Section 100 of the Code is a limited one and that it was not open to the appellant to seek leave under Order 41 Rule 27 to adduce fresh evidence at the stage of second appeal. It is further submitted that in any event the application of the appellants was vague and did not otherwise fall within Order 41 Rule 27.
5. It is not necessary for us to go into the merits of the respective contentions of the parties. For the purpose of this appeal it is sufficient to note that the application should have been disposed of either by rejecting it or allowing it by the High Court before deciding the appeal. Accordingly, we set aside the decision of the High Court in second appeal and remand the matter back to the High Court solely for the purpose of considering the application of the appellants under Order 41 Rule 27. Needless to say, if the application is allowed, it would be open to the High Court to reconsider the merits of the appeal as it may deem fit. The decision of the High Court is accordingly set aside and the appeal is disposed of by remanding the matter back to the High Court for the reasons stated.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.