The court allowed the introduction of additional evidence and remitted the case to the Trial Court for reconsideration, emphasizing the necessity for clarity in disputes over property rights.

JUDGMENT :

S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR, J.

This appeal arises out of the impugned judgment and decree dated 24.10.2019 passed in O.S.No.418/2014 on the file of the III-Additional Senior Civil Judge and C.J.M., Dharwad, [Hereinafter referred to as ‘the Trial Court’], whereby the said suit filed by the appellant/plaintiff for partition and separate possession of her legitimate share in the suit schedule properties was dismissed by the Trial Court.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for respondents 2 to 4, 6 and 7 and perused the material on record.

3. The material on record discloses that the appellant/plaintiff instituted the aforesaid suit against the respondents/defendants for partition and separate possession of her legitimate share in the suit schedule properties and for other reliefs.

4. In the said suit, the defendants 2 to 4 and 5 filed their separate written statements and sought for dismissal of the suit.

5. It is a matter on record that in addition to the aforesaid suit in O.S.No.418/2014 filed by the appellant/plaintiff against the respondents/defendants, defendants 2 to 4 also instituted one more suit in O.S.No.249/2012 for partition and separate possession, declaration etc., in relation to the very same suit schedule properties. The remaining parties were arrayed as defendants in the said suit.

6. Similarly, the aforesaid plaintiffs in O.S.No.249/2012 filed one more suit in O.S.No.419/2014 for declaration, injunction and other reliefs in relation to the very same suit schedule properties only against the banks i.e., defendants 1 to 5 and respondent No.5 –Aravind.

7. The Trial Court before whom all the three suits were pending, clubbed and consolidated all the suits and recorded common evidence and disposed of all the three suits vide impugned judgment and decree, whereby, the suit in O.S.No.418/2014 filed by the appellant in RFA.No.100058/2020 and other two suits in O.S.No.249/2012 and O.S.No.419/2012 filed by respondents 2 to 4 in the present appeal were dismissed by the Trial Court.

8. While the appellant/plaintiff in O.S.No.418/2014 has filed the present appeal aggrieved by the impugned judgment and decree, respondents 2 to 4 herein who were the plaintiffs in the other two suits, O.S.No.249/2012 and O.S.No.419/2014 have instead filed one more suit in O.S.No.64/2021 against the appellant and other persons for partition and separate possession of their alleged share in the suit schedule properties and the said suit is pending adjudication as on today.

9. During the pendency of the present appeal, the appellant/plaintiff has filed an application, I.A.No.1/2025 under Order XLI Rule 27 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, [Hereinafter referred to as “CPC” for short] for permission to produce additional evidence as per the list annexed to the application. Respondents 2 to 4 and respondent No.6 do not oppose/contest the said application. However, respondent No.7, who claims to be the alienee in respect of one of the items of the suit schedule properties, has vehemently opposed/contested the said application.

10. After having heard the learned counsel for the parties, the following points arise for consideration in the present appeal.

(i) Whether the application I.A.No.1/2025 filed by the appellant/plaintiff under Order XLI Rule 27 read with Section 151 of CPC for permission to produce additional evidence deserves to be allowed?

(ii) Whether the impugned judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court warrant interference by this Court in the present appeal?

Regarding Point No.(i) :

11. A perusal of the material on record, in particular th