Back
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
ROHIT RANJAN AGARWAL
Ikhlasurrehman Khan – Appellant
Versus
District Judge Kasganj – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Rohit Ranjan Agarwal, J.
1. Heard Sri Prakhar Tandon, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Swapnil Kumar, learned counsel for the respondents no.2 to 7.
2. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 18.01.2019 passed in Civil Appeal no.22 of 2013 filed by the plaintiff- petitioner in which an application under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC for filing additional evidence has been rejected by the Court below. 3. Facts, in short, are that the plaintiff-petitioner had instituted a Suit bearing Suit No.802 of 1991 against the defendants- respondents no.2 to 7. According to para 1 of the plaint, a registered Will was executed by one Zahur Hasan in favour of the plaintiff on 30.11.1983. The said suit has been filed for seeking relief of permanent injunction against the defendants-respondents. The trial Court on 09.05.2005 and 25.01.2008 had framed the following issues:-
4. Issue no.1 was in regard to the ownership and possession over the property in dispute. The trial Court while deciding issue no.1 had recorded a specific findings that the plaintiff had filed certified copy of the Will, but the said Will was never proved in terms of Section 68 of the EVIDENCE ACT . The s
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....
Additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 can be permitted at the appellate stage if it is essential for a just decision, despite previous pleadings.
The court confirmed the necessity of legally proving a Will's execution, highlighting that a certified copy cannot replace the original unless statutory conditions for secondary evidence are met.
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....
The burden of proving the execution of a Will rests on the propounder, who must dispel any suspicious circumstances to establish its validity.
The court emphasized the requirement for additional evidence to enable it to pronounce judgment or for any other substantial cause, as per the provisions of Order XLI Rule 27 of the C.P.C. and releva....
Will - Proof of documents by primary evidence.—Documents must be proved by primary evidence except When the original is shown or appears to be in the possession or power— of the person against whom t....
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 ....
(1) Presumption contemplated under Section 90 of Indian Evidence Act in respect of documents more than 30 years old does not apply to a Will.(2) Second Appeal – Scope of interference in a Second Appe....
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
