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

1990 Supreme(Mad) 607

SRINIVASAN
P. Natarajan Chettiar – Appellant
Versus
P. Balachandran – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
For the Appearing Parties:Mr. N. Palaniappan, Advocate.

Judgment :-

1. There is no merit in this appeal. The appellate ‘court had admitted the survey plan as additional evidence and marked it as Ex. A16. No ground has been raised in the memorandum of appeal challenging the order admitting additional evidence. On the basis of the additional evidence and on the basis of certain other factors which are referred by the appellate court in its judgment, it finds that the trial court has not taken into account several relevant matters and the trial court had to reconsider the ma tter. The appellate court also found that the Commissioners report and the plan have not been considered properly by the trial court.

2. Learned counsel contends that it is the duty of the appellate Court to consider the evidence by itself and decide the case on merits. No doubt, it is so. When the appellate court has held that on the basis of additional evidence admitted, the matter should be reconsidered and certain facts should be ascertained by taking the measurements of the properties, a remand is justified. Learned counsel for the appellant places reliance on the judgment of K.M. Natarajan, J. in Kannu Naicker and others v. Kalaimani and others 1 . The learned jud

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