AI Overview...
-
AIR 1963 SC 1526 - Legal Precedent on Order 41 Rule 27 CPC: The Supreme Court interpreted Order 41 Rule 27 CPC, emphasizing the conditions under which additional evidence can be admitted in appeal proceedings. The Court held that the admissibility of such evidence depends on satisfying specific conditions, including the necessity of the evidence for proper adjudication. The case established that courts should carefully consider whether the additional evidence is necessary and relevant to the issues on appeal Subash Chandra Panigrahi VS Adrusanti Pradhan - Orissa, RAMAGOUDA VS GONHAL BASANGOUDA BASAVARAJAPPA RAJENDRA GUNJ RAICHUR - Karnataka, Tapasvi Karan Singh VS Parmanand Saran - Rajasthan, Ram Kishan VS Inder Pal - Punjab and Haryana, Bibi Aisha Begam VS Bibi Shahnaz Begam - Patna.
-
Consistent Judicial Application: The decision in AIR 1963 SC 1526 has been consistently followed by courts in subsequent cases, reinforcing the principle that additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 is admissible only when conditions are met and is essential for justice Sukhdeep Singh VS State of Punjab - Punjab and Haryana.
-
Legal Principles and Precedents: The case discusses the importance of adhering to procedural rules and the necessity of demonstrating the relevance and necessity of additional evidence before admission. It also highlights the importance of context-specific evaluation, as courts have distinguished cases where the conditions for admission are not satisfied Deepak Kumar Sanyal VS Naba Kanta Bardoloi - Gauhati.
-
Impact on Property and Contract Disputes: The precedent has been applied in various contexts, including property disputes and specific performance cases, to determine whether additional evidence should be admitted or cases remanded for further proceedings Subeg Singh VS Rakesh Kumar - Punjab and Haryana.
Analysis and Conclusion: AIR 1963 SC 1526 is a foundational Supreme Court decision clarifying the scope and limitations of admitting additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC. It underscores that such evidence is admissible only when it is necessary for a fair decision and when the conditions precedent are satisfied. This judgment has been upheld and consistently applied, shaping procedural jurisprudence in appellate cases involving property, contractual, and other civil disputes.
Search Results for "Air 1963 Sc 1526 Legal Precedent"
2018 0 Supreme(Ori) 96 • India - Orissa
A.K.RATH
Permanent Injunction - Property Dispute - Order 41 Rule 27 CPC - AIR 1963 SC 1526, (2001) 7 SCC 503 Fact of the Case:/p ... Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on Order 41 Rule 27 CPC and legal precedents to determine the admissibility of additional ... A.Seetharma Reddy and others, AIR 1963 SC 1526, Order 41, Rule 27 C.P.C. was the subject-matter of interpretation before the apex Court.
1968 0 Supreme(Kar) 11 • India - Karnataka
M.SANTOSH
533, AIR 1963 SC 1526, [1964] 2 scr 35 - The court discussed the admissibility of additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 of ... C. and the legal principles established in various precedents related to the admissibility of additional evidence and the maintainability ... C. and cited various precedents to support its decision. ... Seetha Rama Reddy, AIR 1963 SC 1526, [1964] 2 scr 35 their Lordships of the Supreme Court at para 13 ....
2019 0 Supreme(P&H) 2869 • India - Punjab and Haryana
JAISHREE THAKUR
specific performance - agreement to sell - Order 41 Rule 27 CPC - 1963 AIR (SC) 1526, (2009) 8 S.C.C. 231 Fact of the Case ... It cited Order 41 Rule 27 CPC and legal precedents to support its decision to remand the case for appropriate orders. ... Veetharama Reddy and others, 1963 AIR (SC) 1526 has been consistently followed by the Courts. 10.
2019 0 Supreme(Raj) 285 • India - Rajasthan
P.K.LOHRA
Seetharama Reddy (AIR 1963 SC 1526) ... (8) Aisha Begam v. Shahnaz Begam [2015 (3) PLJR 562] ... (9) Upendranath Jena v. Soumendranath Banarjee [106 (2008) CLT 233] ... (10) Municipal Board v. ... ... In view of concurrent finding of fact recorded against the appellant by both the Courts below, based on sound reasonings, the Court has not considered it wise and prudent to discuss every individual legal precedent in detail in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. ... precedents#HL_....
2004 0 Supreme(P&H) 382 • India - Punjab and Haryana
M.M.KUMAR
The court also relied on precedents to support the view that the additional evidence would be necessary for deciding the issue involved ... Seetharama Reddy and others, AIR 1963 SC 1526; Natha Singh v. The Financial Commissioner, Taxation, AIR 1976 SC 1053; Land Acquisition Officer v. H. Narayanaiah etc., AIR 1976 SC 2403 and P. Purushottam Reddy and another v. Pratap Steels Ltd., 2002(2) SCC 686. ... Therefore, on the basis of the principles as well as precedents, no....
2018 0 Supreme(Gau) 718 • India - Gauhati
KALYAN RAI SURANA
Seetharama Reddy and Others, AIR 1963 SC 1526 and K.C. Laxmana vs. K.C. Chandrappa Gowda, AIR 2009 Kar. 112. ... 17. ... In paragraph 9 of the said judgment, as appears in (1969) 0 Supreme (MP) 57, it has been held that: ... “9..........it appears that under sections 13 and 45, the registration of books with the Registrar of Copyrights, is a condition precedent for acquiring copyright with respect to ... Hajia Khatum Bibi and Another, AIR 1956 Cal. 625, Sri Ram Pasricha vs. Jagannath a....
2015 0 Supreme(P&H) 1194 • India - Punjab and Haryana
RAJ MOHAN SINGH
The view expressed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in AIR 1963 S.C. 1526 K. Venkataramiah Vs. A. Seetharama Reddy and others has been consistently followed by the Courts. ... Seetharama Reddy & Ors., AIR 1963 S.C. 1526. (Para 8) ... 2. H.P. Vedavyasachar v. Shivashankara, (2009) 8 S.C.C.231. (Para 11) ... JUDGMENT ... Mr. ... Learned counsel for the accused during the course of arguments cited precedents to seek indulgence of this Court to take such prima facie view at t....
2014 7 Supreme 193 • India - Supreme Court
DIPAK MISRA, V.GOPALA GOWDA
1963 SC 1526; AIR 1979 SC 553; (1994) 4 SCC 659; JT 2002 (6) SC 16 – Distinguished ... (Para 18) ... AIR 1931 PC 143; AIR 1951 SC 193AIR 1960 SC 941 – Relied upon ... Seetharama Reddy and others AIR 1963 SC 1526, Syed Abdul Khader v. Rami Reddy and others, AIR 1979 SC 553, Billa Jagan Mohan Reddy and another v. Billa Sanjeeva Reddy and others, (1994) 4 SCC 659 and Wadi v. ... No authority or precedent#HL_....
1994 0 Supreme(Guj) 97 • India - Gujarat
J.M.PANCHAL
others – Out of said land, land admeasuring about one acre was donated to one Dolatram Mulshanker Dave by gift deed dated 16/11/1963 ... After the death of Shri Indravijaysinhji, opponent Nos. 6 and 7 herein became the owners of the said land as legal heirs of deceased ... Merely because an appeal is pending before the supreme Court, it cannot be said that the decision rendered by the Division Bench is no longer a good law or that it ceases to be a binding precedent. ... State of Gujarat and Anr. , AIR 1986 SC 1323 :"civ....
2015 0 Supreme(Pat) 128 • India - Patna
ADITYA KUMAR TRIVEDI
It also referred to Section 165 of the Evidence Act and various legal provisions related to the admissibility of additional evidence ... Seetha Rama Reddy, AIR 1963 SC 1526, is apposite. ... In the event the former is to be applied, it would be for the applicant to show that the ingredients or conditions precedent mentioned therein are satisfied. ... It is now a trite law that the conditions precedent for application of clause (aa) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 27 of Order XLI is different f....
Filter by Legal Phrase
