Venkatarama Ayyar, J.-

This is an appeal by the plaintiff against the judgment: of Panchapakesa Ayyar, J., in S.A.No.2159 of 1945. The suit was for recovery of possession of eight items of immoveable properties on the ground that they belonged to one Buchipudi Rami Reddi and that the plaintiff and defendants 1 and 2 were entitled to them as his reversioners. The following genealogical table will bring out the relationship of the parties as set out in the plaint.

The plaintiff alleged that after the death of Rami Reddi, his widow and his daughters had effected alienations of the suit properties without any necessity, that those alienations were not binding on the reversioners and that the plaintiff was entitled to partition and delivery of 1/3rd share therein. Defendants 1 and 2 admitted the claim of the plaintiff. The other defendants contested the suit mainly on the ground that the properties did not devolve on Lakshmamma as the widow of Rami Reddi but that the brother of Rami Reddi who took the properties by survivorship had settled them on her for her lifetime in lieu of her claim for maintenance. They also contended that the alienations were supported by necessity and binding on the reversioners. Defendants 7 to 12 raised a further plea that Rami Reddi had no daughter of the name of Mahalakshmamma and that the plaintiff and the first defendant were not reversioners to his estate. The District Munsiff who tried the suit held that the plaintiff has established the relationship set out in the plaint, that the suit properties belonged to Rami Reddi and that the alienations were not binding on the reversioners. He accordingly granted a decree for partition and delivery of one-third share of the suit properties with mesne profits in favour of the plaintiff. There was an appeal by defendants 8 to 12, 15 and 20 to 22 in respect of items 2, 3, 2/3rd share of item 4 and item 8, A.S. No. 436 of 1943, on the file of the Subordinate Judge of Guntur. The 4th defendant also preferred an appeal A.S.No.125 of 1944 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Guntur and that related to 62 cents in item No.1. There was no appeal in respect of the other items of properties and the defendants who were interested in those items were not even parties to the above appeals. At the hearing of the appeals, A.S. No.436 of 1943 and A.S.No.125 of 1944, an application was made for admission of fresh documents. The same was ordered and the documents were marked as Exhibit D-9 series. Relying mainly on those documents the Subordinate Judge held that Mahalakshmamma was not proved to be the daughter of Rami Reddi and that, therefore, the plaintiff was not the reversioner to his estate. He also held that the suit properties did not belong to Rami Reddi. On these findings he set aside the decree of the District Munsiff and dismissed the suit not only against those defendants who had filed the appeals but also against the other defendants who had not. This he did in exercise of his powers under Order 41, rule 33. The plaintiff appealed to this Court against this decision, S.A.No.2159 of 1945. That was heard by Panchapakesa Ayyar, J., who agreeing with the Subordinate Judge dismissed the appeal. Against this judgment this appeal has been preferred under clause 15 of the Letters Patent the learned Judge having granted leave therefor.

On behalf of the appellants two contentions have been pressed before us: (1) that additional evidence was wrongly admitted in appeal by the Subordinate Judge and (2) that the dismissal of the suit even as against defendants who had not preferred any appeal was improper. On the first question the provision of law which authorises the taking of additional evidence in appeal is Order 41, rule 27 which, as amended in Madras, runs as follows:

"27. (1) The parties to an appeal shall not be entitled to produce additional evidence whether oral or documentary, in the appellate court, but if-

(a) the Court from whose decree the appeal is preferred has r

Click Here to Read the rest of this document