2025 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 65261

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
Tirumala Devi Eada, J
K LAXMAN – Appellant
Versus
K.Lakshmi – Respondent
C.C.C.A. Nos.53 and 110 of 2019|I.A. No.1 of 2025 in C.C.C.A. No.53 of 2019

An appellate court may admit additional evidence under Order XLI Rule 27, but such evidence must be strictly proved and free from suspicious circumstances. Any document, including a Will, that is riddled with inconsistencies or unexplained delays in disclosure remains legally invalid and insufficient to alter a partition decree.

Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order XLI Rule 27 - Production of additional evidence in appellate court - Appellate court may allow additional evidence if the party establishes that despite due diligence, evidence was not within their knowledge or could not be produced at trial, or if the court requires such evidence to pronounce judgment - The power to receive additional evidence should be exercised judicially, considering whether the evidence is necessary to enable the court to pronounce judgment and whether it is relevant to the issues. (Paras 18, 23)

(B) Evidence - Proof of Will - Section 68 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - A Will must be proved by at least one attesting witness and must pass the test of excluding suspicious circumstances - Mere existence of a document does not prove its validity if it is clouded by unexplained inconsistencies, such as discrepancies in execution methods (thumb impression vs signature) or failure to disclose the document during prolonged litigation. (Paras 25, 26, 27, 28)

(C) Res Judicata - Section 11 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Application of doctrine - Barred only if an issue was directly and substantially in issue in a former suit or proceeding between the same parties and was heard and finally decided - An interlocutory application dismissed on procedural grounds without reaching the merits of the documents does not constitute res judicata for subsequent production of the same evidence where permissible under law. (Para 16)

Facts of the case:
The litigation involves a partition suit among siblings regarding a self-acquired property of their deceased father. During the suit, it was contended that there was an oral partition and that the daughters had already received their shares through dowry and ornaments. After the passing of a preliminary decree and during delayed final decree proceedings, one defendant sought to introduce a purported Will and an affirmation letter as additional evidence, claiming they were discovered only after his mother's death. This evidence would have excluded other heirs from the partition.

Findings of Court:
The court examined the additional evidence under Order XLI Rule 27 but found the documents were surrounded by suspicious circumstances. There were unexplained discrepancies regarding the mode of execution (thumb impressions vs signatures) and a total lack of disclosure by the mother, who lived with the appellant throughout the pendency of the suit. The court found no reliable evidence to substantiate the claim of prior oral partition.

Issues: 1) Whether the introduction of additional evidence is barred by res judicata. 2) Whether the appellate court should admit the purported Will and affirmation letter as additional evidence. 3) Whether the suit property is subject to partition among all legal heirs.

Ratio Decidendi: While the appellate court has discretion to admit additional evidence to do substantial justice, such evidence must be credible and free from suspicious circumstances. A Will that deviates from natural distribution of property must be proved strictly; where the evidence creates more suspicion than certainty, it cannot be relied upon to set aside a valid preliminary decree.

Result: Appeals dismissed; preliminary and final decrees confirmed.