Back
NIDHI GUPTA
Suresh Kumar – Appellant
Versus
Vinay Kumar – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Nidhi Gupta, J.
Present Revision Petition has been filed by the defendant No. 2 seeking quashing of impugned order dated 31.01.2017 (Annexure P4) passed by learned lower Appellate Court vide which petitioner's application under Order 41, Rule 27 CPC for leading additional evidence has been dismissed.
2. Brief facts of the case are that respondent No.1/plaintiff had filed a Suit for declaration with consequential relief of permanent injunction, that plaintiffs and defendants are owners-in- possession in equal share of the suit property, and Will dated 21.08.2006 executed by late Sh. Madan Mohan in favour of defendants No.1 and 2 is illegal and not binding on rights of the plaintiff as suit property is ancestral in nature.
3. The petitioner along with other defendants/respondents No.2 to 4 herein filed written statement and contested the Suit and inter-alia, pleaded that there is no Joint Hindu Family with the plaintiff, as the same was severed after the plaintiff got separated from his father late Sh. Madan Mohan almost 30 years ago.
4. It was further pleaded that suit property was acquired by father of the parties late Sh. Madan Mohan, who had acquired the suit property by w
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....
A court may permit additional evidence to ensure fair adjudication if it is relevant, even after evidence closure, stressing the necessity to examine evidence related to a Will in contested property ....
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 burden of proving the execution of a Will rests on the propounder, who must dispel any suspicious circumstances to establish its validity.
A party cannot introduce additional evidence at the appellate stage if it was not presented during the trial despite due diligence; original documents must be properly proven as per statutory require....
The Appellate Court's discretion under Order 41, Rule 27 CPC to admit additional evidence is limited and should not excuse untimely submissions by parties.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the necessity of following the prescribed legal procedures, including examining attesting witnesses, for proving a Will.
Inadvertence of party or his inability to understand legal issues involved or wrong advice of a pleader or negligence of a pleader or that party did not realise importance of a document does not cons....
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
