Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
ROMESH VERMA
Raghubir Singh (deceased) through LRs Satnam Kaur – Appellant
Versus
Kanaura Ram – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. appeal admitted on evidence misappreciation and o41r27 issues (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. plaintiff claims adverse possession against nautor grant (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 3. appellants allege errors; respondents cite concurrent findings (Para 12 , 13) |
| 4. plaintiff failed to prove possession over revenue records (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23) |
| 5. second appeal limited to substantial questions of law (Para 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35) |
| 6. o41r27 application rejected for lack of diligence (Para 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43) |
| 7. appeal dismissed for want of merit (Para 44 , 45) |
Romesh Verma, J.
The present appeal arises out of the judgment and decree, passed by learned Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court, Mandi, District Mandi, H.P. dated 20.10.2010, whereby the appeal filed by the present appellant was dismissed and the judgment and decree, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Court No.2, Mandi, District Mandi, H.P. was affirmed.
2. The parties hereinafter shall be referred to as the plaintiff and defendants.
3. The present appeal was listed for final disposal at the admission stage.
Second appeals under CPC S.100 do not permit re-appreciation of evidence; concurrent findings upheld absent perversity or substantial question of law. Adverse possession claim fails without rebutting....
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....
Point of Law : Provisions of clause (b) of Rule 27 of Order 41CPC. Said rule applies when Court feels that production of any document or examination of any witness is necessary to enable it to pronou....
(1) Additional evidence – Parties do not possess any vested or automatic right to seek admission of additional evidence at appellate stage.(2) Appeal is ordinarily to be decided on evidence adduced b....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the strict interpretation and application of the provisions of Order 41 Rule 27 C.P.C regarding the admissibility of additional evidence in the app....
Title and adverse possession claims mutually inconsistent; adverse possession requires proof of specific hostile, open, continuous possession known to owner. No interference with concurrent factual f....
The right to withdraw a suit at the appellate stage is not absolute; it depends on the crystallized rights established by the court's earlier judgments.
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
