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

1991 Supreme(Kar) 261

K.J.SHETTY, M.RAMA JOIS
MUNIVENKATAPPA – Appellant
Versus
CHIKKAPAPANMIA – Respondent


Advocates:
T.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO, V.GOPALA GOWDA

M. RAMA JOIS, J.

( 1 ) IN this second appeal presented under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code referred to division bench under Section 9 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961, the following question of law arises for consideration:whether in a second appeal presented before this court under Section 100 of the C. P. C. this court has no power to allow a party to produce additional evidence even if the conditions specified in clause (aa) of order 41, Rule 27 are satisfied?

( 2 ) BRIEF facts of the case are these: according to the appellant munivenkatappa, he purchased 2 acres of land in sy. No. 45/5 of kooteri village, kasaba hobli, kolar taluk, by registered sale deed dated 18-1-1951 (marked as ex. D-4 in the suit) and that he purchased another 32 guntas of land in the same survey number under a registered sale deed dated 5-3-1953 (marked as ex. D-5 in the suit) from one hanumanthappa, the father of the respondent. O. s. No. 41 of 1974 was filed by respondent-chikkapapamma praying for declaration and possession of the very property purchased by the appellant under the two registered sale deeds from hanumanthappa. The case of the respondent-plaintiff was that on the date on whi
















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 telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top