JASPREET SINGH
Kamlesh Kumar – Appellant
Versus
Bal Krishna – Respondent
What is the admissibility of additional evidence under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC in an appeal? What is the test for requiring or admitting additional evidence under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC (clauses (a)(aa)(b))? What is the impact of a failure to interpret the title document and boundary disputes on the outcome of a second appeal?
ORDER :
Jaspreet Singh, J.
1. This is the plaintiffs' second appeal whereby their suit for mandatory injunction and possession was dismissed by the trial court and his appeal under Section 96 CPC before the Additional District Judge, Pratapgarh also met the same fate.
2. The aforesaid second appeal was admitted by this Court vide order dated 04.12.1980, however, at the time of admission, the substantial questions of law were not framed.
3. During the pendency of the above appeal, the appellants had made an application under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC for filing additional documents on record vide Civil Misc. Application No.336 of 1988 and this Court by means of the order dated 26.08.1988 had directed that the said application shall be heard along with this appeal. Thus, in view of the above, the said application has been heard along with the second appeal.
4. Before delving into the merits of the substantial question of law, certain relevant facts for the purposes of arriving at an effective and just adjudication are being noted hereinafter.
5. The appellants are the legal heirs of one
A. Andisamy Chettiar vs. A. Subburaj Chettiar
Hari Har Dutt Lal vs. Wari Ali
K.R. Mohan Reddy vs. Net Work Inc.
Maharaj Singh vs. State of U.P.
Malyalam Plantations Ltd. vs. State of Kerala
N. Kamalam (dead) and another vs. Ayyasamy and another
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.