Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
G. GIRISH, J
A. Radhakrishnan S/o Bhageerathi Amma – Appellant
Versus
Nandakumaran S/o Allath Bhargavi Amma – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
1. The defendant Nos. 18 & 20 in O.S. No. 1129/1986 on the files of the First Additional Sub Court, Thrissur, have filed this appeal challenging the preliminary decree and judgment rendered by the said Court on 18.07.2011.
2. Two members of the Joint Hindu Family who had been following Cochin Nair Act, had instituted the suit on 20.10.1986 for partition of the plaint ‘A’ & ‘B’ scheduled properties which they claimed to be Thavazhi properties. On 31.03.1997, the learned Sub Judge had passed a preliminary decree and judgment directing the partition of plaint ‘A’ & ‘B’ scheduled properties into 910 shares allotting 56 shares each to the first plaintiff and defendants 39, 2, 3, 5, 6 & 7. The defendants 19 to 28 were allotted 49 shares each, whereas 35 shares each were set apart to plaintiff No.2, defendants 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 & 18. The above decree and judgment were challenged before this Court in A.S.No.176/1998 by the 37th defendant, and A.S.No.407/1998 by the defendants 7 & 18. A Division Bench of this Court, as per the judgment rendered on 06.12.2010, allowed the appeal, set aside the preliminary decree and remanded the matter to the Trial Court for passi
Additional evidence in appellate proceedings is only permissible under specific conditions, which were not met by the appellants.
The burden of proving the execution of a Will rests on the propounder, who must dispel any suspicious circumstances to establish its validity.
Appellate courts must consider additional evidence only when critical for the resolution of ongoing legal issues, as per due process.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the enabling power of the Appellate Court to allow additional evidence for any substantial cause and the need for such evidence to pronounce jud....
The court affirmed that allowing additional evidence is within the inherent powers of the court under Section 151 of the CPC, provided it serves the ends of justice and is not actuated by malafide in....
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.
The rejection of additional evidence sought to be adduced in the First Appellate Court was justified, as it did not meet the criteria under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Civil Procedure Code, and it would ....
Appellate court cannot admit additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC absent due diligence proof or necessity for judgment; must record reasons; erroneous allowance despite negligence and delay....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
