Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, S. ABDUL NAZEER, JJ.
The Corporation of Madras & Anr. – Appellant(s)
VERSUS
M. Parthasarathy & Ors. – Respondent(s)
CIVIL APPEAL No.3033 OF 2006 WITH CIVIL APPEAL No.8185 OF 2018 (Arising out of S.L.P.(c) No. 21796 of 2018) (D.No.15579/2017)
Decided On : 10-08-2018
(1976) 4 SCC 9; (2010) 8 SCC 423; (2018) 4 SCC 759 – Relied upon
Facts of the case:
The respondents claiming to be the owners of the suit land filed four civil suits for permanent injunction.
The Trial Judge clubbed all the four suits for their analogous disposal and dismissed all the four suits filed by the respondents with costs.
The plaintiff-respondents filed first appeals. In the appeals, the respondents filed an application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 and sought permission to adduce additional evidence in support of their case.
The first Appellate Court allowed the application filed under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code thereby permitting the plaintiffs to file the additional evidence. The Appellate Court then placing reliance on the additional evidence tendered by the plaintiffs for the first time at the appellate stage, allowed the appeals.
The defendants-appellants filed second appeals in the High Court. The plaintiffs-respondents) also filed a writ petition in the High Court in relation to the land in question. The High Court dismissed the second appeals filed by the defendants-appellants and allowed the writ petition filed by the respondents herein as a consequence of dismissal of the appellants’ second appeals and affirmed the judgment/decree passed by the first Appellate Court.
Finding of the Court:
Judgments of the courts below are not sustainable.
Result: Appeals allowed.
JUDGMENT
Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.
1) Leave granted in S.L.P.(c) No………...D.No.15579/2017).
2) These appeals are directed against the final judgment and order dated 09.10.2002 passed by the High Court of Madras in Second Appeal Nos.126 to 129 of 1997 and Writ Petition No.13097 of 1993 whereby the High Court dismissed the second appeals filed by the appellants herein and allowed the writ petition filed by the respondents herein.
3) In order to appreciate the issue arising in these appeals, few relevant facts need to be mentioned hereinbelow.
4) The appellants are the defendants whereas the respondents are the plaintiffs in the civil suits out of which these appeals arise.
5) The dispute relates to a land measuring about 3600 sq. ft. in Block No.15, Aminjikarai Village, Pulla Reddy Avenue, Chennai (hereinafter referred to as the “suit land”).
6) The respondents claiming to be the owners of the suit land filed four civil suits bearing O.S. Nos.2207 of 1992, 2345 of 1992, 2346 of 1992 and 2347 of 1992 against the appellants (defendants) in the City Civil Court at Chennai for permanent injunction.
7) The appellants on being served denied the claims set up by the respondents by filing written statement. Since all the four suits were between the same parties and relate to one piece of land though part of different four sale deeds and further there was no multiplicity of causes of action, the Trial Judge clubbed all the four suits for their analogous disposal. The Trial Court accordingly framed common issues on the basis of the pleadings. Parties adduced their common evidence. The Trial Court, by a common judgment/decree dated 24.09.1993, dismissed all the four suits filed by the respondents with costs.
8) The plaintiffs (respondents herein) felt aggrieved filed first appeals being A.S. Nos.338 to 341 of 1993 in the Court of 8th Additional District Judge, Chennai. In the appeals, the plaintiffs filed an application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (for short “the Code”) and sought permission to adduce additional evidence in support of their case (CMP No.1559/93).
9) By judgment/decree dated 17.12.1993, the Additional District Judge allowed the application filed under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code thereby permitting the plaintiffs (appellants before the first Appellate Court) to file the additional evidence. The Appellate Court then exhibited the additional evidence as Exs. P16 to P20 and placing reliance on the additional evidence tendered by the plaintiffs for the first time at the appellate stage, allowed the appeals, set aside the judgment and decree of the Trial Court and decreed all the four civil suits filed by the respondents against the appellants.
10) The defendants (appellants herein) felt aggrieved and filed second appeals in the High Court. The plaintiffs (respondents herein) also filed a writ petition in the High Court in relation to the land in question. By impugned judgment, the High Court dismissed the second appeals filed by the defendants (appellants herein) and allowed the writ petition filed by the respondents herein as a consequence of dismissal of the appellants’ second appeals and affirmed the judgment/decree passed by the first Appellate Court. It is against this order of the High Court, the defendants felt aggrieved and filed the present appeals by way of special leave in this Court.
11) Heard Mr. R. Basant, learned senior counsel for the appellants and Ms. Aruna Prakash, learned counsel for the respondents.
12) Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the written submissions filed by the learned counsel for the respondents, we are of the considered view that these appeals deserve to be allowed in part on a short ground as indicated infra.
13) It is an admitted fact that the respondents (plaintiffs) had filed an application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code in their first appeals before the first Appellate Court (CMP No.1559/93) praying therein for production of additional e
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
