SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2015 Supreme(SC) 1102

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Dipak Misra, Prafulla C. Pant, JJ.
A. Andisamy Chettiar – Appellant
Versus
A. Subburaj Chettiar – Respondent
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 14055 OF 2015 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 7798 of 2015)
Decided On : 08-12-2015

IMPORTANT POINT
High Court, in its revisional jurisdiction, will not be entitled to interfere with the order passed by the first appellate court as regards adducing additional evidence.

Headnote:Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Section 107(1)(d) r/w Order XLI, Rule 27 and section 115 – Parties to a suit are not allowed to adduce additional evidence at the appellate stage to fill-in the lacuna – High Court, in its revisional jurisdiction, will not be entitled to interfere with the order passed by the first appellate court as regards adducing additional evidence – Impugned judgment set aside – Matter remitted to first appellate court for fresh consideration on principles enumerated b y the Supreme Court. (Para 12, 20)

       (2007) 14 SCC 257; (2008) 8 SCC 511; (2001) 7 SCC 503; (2012) 8 SCC 148; (2001) 1 SCC 309; (1997) 6 SCC 507 – Relied upon

       Facts of the case:

       Plaintiff Andisamy Chettiar and defendant Subburaj Chettiar are sons of Ayyappan Chettiar.

       Plaintiff’s father Ayyappan Chettiar purchased the property from Gurusamy Naicker, and constructed his house. It is further pleaded that Ayyappan Chettiar executed Will dated 13.12.1990 in favour of the plaintiff, and after death of his father in 1997, the plaintiff is in exclusive possession of the property. Alleging that the defendant has no right over the disputed property, relief of permanent injunction against him is sought in the suit.

       The suit was dismissed by the trial court.

       The plaintiff filed appeal before the first appellate court.

       During the pendency of the appeal, the appellant moved an I.A. for scientific verification of his father’s signature on the Will.

       This application was allowed and the appellant was directed to deposit a sum of Rs.5000/- as fee.

       The defendant challenged the order passed by the first appellate court, allowing the application for additional evidence, before the High Court in Civil Revision Petition which is allowed.

       Finding of the Court;

       Impugned judgment cannot be upheld.

       Result: Appeal allowed.

JUDGMENT

Prafulla C. Pant, J.

This appeal is directed against order dated 07.11.2014, passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras, Bench Madurai, in Civil Revision Petition (PD) (MD) No. 1787 of 2008 whereby the revision was allowed, and order dated 12.03.2008 passed by Subordinate Judge, Virudhunagar, on I.A. No. 3 of 2008 (in A.S. No. 55 of 2007), is set aside.

2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the papers on record.

3. Succinctly stated, facts of this case are that the appellant/plaintiff instituted Original Suit No. 92 of 2003 before District Munsif, Virudhunagar, for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering in his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property in suit. It is pleaded in the plaint that originally the property in dispute was owned by one Gopalsamy Pillai. On 21.08.1963 Gopalsamy Pillai transferred the property by executing a sale deed in favour of one Lakshmiammal. Lakshmiammal further transferred the property to Gurusamy Naicker through deed dated 26.12.1968. Plaintiff’s father Ayyappan Chettiar purchased the property from Gurusamy Naicker, and constructed his house. It is further pleaded that Ayyappan Chettiar executed Will dated 13.12.1990 in favour of the plaintiff, and after death of his father in 1997, the plaintiff is in exclusive possession of the property. Alleging that the defendant has no right over the disputed property, relief of permanent injunction against him is sought in the suit.

Plaintiff Andisamy Chettiar and defendant Subburaj Chettiar are sons of Ayyappan Chettiar.

4. The defendant filed his written statement and contested the suit. It is not disputed in the written statement that Ayyappan Chettiar, who purchased the property from Gurusamy Naicker, died on 12.10.1997. However, it is disputed that Ayyappan Chettiar executed Will dated 13.12.1990, relied by the plaintiff. It is alleged by the defendant that the plaintiff has filed suit for permanent injunction only to evade partition of the property. It is also pleaded by the defendant that apart from two sons, Ayyappan Chettiar had three daughters, namely, Lakshmi, Avudaithai and Andal. Lakshmi and Andal died intestate leaving legal heirs, as such, suit is bad for non-joinder of remaining daughter of Ayyappan Chettiar and legal heirs of pre-deceased daughters.

5. On the basis of pleadings of the parties following issues were framed by the trial court: -

(i) Whether Ayyappan Chettiar executed a Will in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the property in suit?

(ii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of permanent injunction?

(iii) To what other relief, if any, the plaintiff is entitled?

6. The plaintiff got examined himself as PW-1 Andisamy Chettiar and he also got examined PW-2 Selvarajan, stated to be attesting witness of the Will. Nine documents (including Will Ex.A-4) were filed by the plaintiff. On behalf of the defendant, he got himself examined as DW-1 Subburaj Chettiar, and filed three documents. The trial court, after hearing the parties, decided issue No. 1 against the plaintiff holding that the plaintiff failed to prove that Ayyappan Chettiar executed the Will relied on by him. On the basis of finding on issue No. 1, issue Nos. 2 and 3 are also decided in favour of the defendant, and the suit was dismissed vide judgment and order dated 05.02.2007.

7. Aggrieved by the decree passed by the trial court, the plaintiff filed appeal (A.S. No. 55 of 2007) before the first appellate court, i.e. Subordinate Judge, Virudhunagar.

8. During the pendency of A.S. No. 55 of 2007 before the first appellate court, an application (I.A. No. 3 of 2008) was moved on behalf of the plaintiff with following prayer: -

“Therefore it is just and necessary that this Hon’ble Court be graciously pleased to direct a scientific investigation to find out whether the signature of Ayyappan Chettiar, my father in Ex. A-4 is genuine by comparing the signature of Ayyappan Chettiar, in Ex. A-4 wit


























Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top