Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Nidhi Gupta, J.
Kaka Singh – Appellant
Versus
Pal Singh & Ors. – Respondents
CR. No. 8393 of 2018 (O&M)
Decided On : 24-11-2022
additional evidence - Property Dispute - Order 41 Rule 27 CPC - 145K-15M, 0K-07M - mutation no.1908 dated 5.3.2006 BK - The court discussed the relevance of mutation no.1908 dated 5.3.2006 BK in determining whether the suit property is ancestral joint Hindu coparcenary property of the parties. The court upheld the decision to allow the plaintiff to produce the mutation as additional evidence, stating that it is a valuable piece of evidence for proper adjudication of the dispute and issues at hand.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a civil suit for declaration and joint possession of ancestral joint Hindu property. The trial court held the property as coparcenary property, but the first appellate court partially accepted the appeal. The matter was remanded back to the first appellate court, and during the pendency of the appeal, the plaintiff moved an application to produce mutation no.1908 dated 5.3.2006 BK as additional evidence.
Finding of the Court:
The court rejected the petitioner's contention that the first appellate court traveled beyond the scope of remand by allowing the additional evidence. It upheld the decision to allow the plaintiff to produce the mutation as additional evidence, stating its probative value in arriving at a just decision. The court also dismissed the petitioner's argument that the mutation was not produced in the proper manner.
Issues: The core issue was to determine whether the suit property is ancestral joint Hindu coparcenary property of the parties. The court also addressed the admissibility of additional evidence and the proper manner of producing mutation as evidence.
Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that the mutation was a valuable piece of evidence for proper adjudication of the dispute and issues at hand. It also emphasized the discretion of the appellate court to determine whether such evidence is necessary to enable it to pronounce judgment.
Final Decision: The revision petition was dismissed, and the decision to allow the plaintiff to produce mutation no.1908 dated 5.3.2006 BK as additional evidence was upheld.
JUDGMENT
Nidhi Gupta, J. - Prayer in the present revision petition is for quashing of the order dated 27.11.2018 (Annexure P-4) passed by learned lower Appellate Court whereby application moved by the plaintiff/respondent no.1 for additional evidence has been accepted allowing him to produce on record mutation no.1908 dated 5.3.2006 BK (Bikrami Samvat).
2. Brief facts of the case are that plaintiff/respondent no.1 filed civil suit for declaration and joint possession to the extent of 1/5th share out of total land measuring 145K-15M and land measuring 0K-07M (land in dispute). It was alleged that the suit property is ancestral joint Hindu property of the parties and they are coparceners. It was further alleged in the suit that Jangir Singh, father of the parties was Karta of the families and therefore, though Jangir Singh was not entitled to, yet had suffered a decree dated 3.5.1989 in favour of Kaka Singh, present petitioner/defendant no.1 to the extent of 1/3rd share of the land. It was pleaded by Pal Singh plaintiff/respondent no.1 that the said judgment dated 3.5.1989 is liable to be set aside qua his right as he came to know about the decree after the death of Jangir Singh only and the mutation was sanctioned illegally.
3. Notice of the suit was issued and defendant no.1/ petitioner filed written statement taking objection that suit property was not ancestral and was self-acquired property of Jangir Singh, who had given 1/3rd share of 145K to the petitioner/defendant in a family settlement and since then the defendant is in possession of the land as owner. It is stated that the property was given to the petitioner in the family settlement and this right was recognized in the decree in the aforementioned civil suit No.289 of 8.4.1982 decided on 3.5.1989 in favour of petitioner/defendant and that the said decree is in the knowledge of plaintiff/respondent.
4. On the basis of the above pleadings, material issue i.e. issue number 4 was framed to the effect that 'Whether the suit property is ancestral joint Hindu coparcenary property of the parties and deceased Jangir Singh was Karta thereof? OPP.' Thereafter, the learned Sub Judge Ist Class, Dhuri vide judgment and decree dated 22.5.1990 (Annexure P-1) answered issue no.4 in affirmative and held that the property in dispute is Hindu family ancestral coparcenary property and plaintiff has right by birth and Jangir Singh was karta of the entire property and he could not have transferred the entire land in favour of petitioner/defendant no.1 and could only transfer his share. It is important to note that learned Trial Court came to this conclusion on the basis of mutation excerpt Ex. PX.
5. Aggrieved of the above said judgment and decree the present petitioner filed Appeal No.205 of 27.7.1990 which was partly accepted by the learned Additional District Judge, Sangrur vide judgment and decree dated 26.9.1994 in which it was held that the share of respondent/plaintiff Pal Singh would be 1/5th in the land measuring 48K13M which comes to 9K15M.
6. Aggrieved of this judgment dated 26.9.1994 both the parties herein preferred separate Regular Second Appeals before this Court, which were disposed of by this Court vide common order dated 24.4.2018 (Annexure P-3) remanding the matter back to the First Appellate Court to re-decide the entire matter in accordance with law. This Court observed that First Appellate Court had failed to decide whether the property is a coparcenary property or not.
7. It is during the pendency of this appeal before the First Appellate Court in the second round, that the plaintiff/respondent No. 1 moved the present application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC to prove the mutation of inheritance of Chanan Singh (since deceased) bearing No.1908 dated 5.3.2006 BK and for producing certified copy of the abovesaid mutation as additional evidence. It was submitted that the suit land was in the name of Chanan Singh which was inherited by his sons Ganda Singh and Jangir Singh and gra
AI
The discretion of the appellate court to determine the necessity of additional evidence and the probative value of the evidence in arriving at a just decision.
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....
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....
The admissibility of public documents requires corroborative evidence to establish claims of familial relationships; civil suits challenging property mutations remain maintainable under specific prov....
The Appellate Court cannot remand a case without meeting the specific criteria outlined in the Civil Procedure Code, particularly under Order 41, Rules 23, 23-A, or 25.
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
