Partly allowed

Smt Ningamma v. C L Shankare Gowda

Karnataka HC12 Dec 2024RSA/147/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed additional evidence application under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC regarding quashed revenue orders and set aside First Appellate Court judgment, remitting matter for reconsideration with expedited disposal within six months.

What did the court decide?

I.A. no 1/2024 allowed; impugned judgment dated 30.06.2014 set aside and restored; First Appellate Court to permit additional evidence and expedite disposal within six months.

Smt Ningamma Vs C L Shankare Gowda — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:51302 RSA No. 147 of 2015

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2024

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 147 OF 2015 (INJ)

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

SMT NINGAMMA,

¶7

AGED ABOUT 82 YEARS, W/O LATE NINGE GOWDA,

¶8

R/O CHELLANAYAKANAHALLI,

¶9

BASARALU HOBLI, MANDYA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT-571 401.

¶10

REP BY HER GPA HOLDER

¶11

SHIVALINGE GOWDA,

¶12

R/A CHELLANAYAKANAHALLY, BASARALU HOBLI, MANDYA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT-571401.

¶13

LRs OF DECEASED APPELLANT

¶14

1(a) SRI C.L. SHIVALINGEGOWDA, S/O LATE LINGEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS,

¶15

SMT. SHANTHAMMA,

¶16

1(b) D/O LATE LINGEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,

¶17

Digitally signed by ANUSHA V Location: High Court Of Karnataka

¶18

SMT. YASHODA,

¶19

1(c) D/O LATE LINGEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,

¶20

SRI JAGADISHA,

¶21

1(d) S/O LATE LINGEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,

¶22

1(e) SRI LOKESH S/O LATE LINGEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,

¶23

1(f) SMT. SARASWATHI, S/O LATE LINGEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,

¶24

1(g) SMT. ANANDAMMA

¶25

¶26

NC: 2024:KHC:51302 RSA No. 147 of 2015

¶27

W/O SHIVARAMEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,

¶28

ALL ARE R/A CHELLANAYAKANAHALLY VILLAGE, BASARALU HOBLI, MANDYA TALUK & DISTRICT.

¶29

…APPELLANTS

¶30

[BY VIVEKANANDA T.P., ADVOCATE (PH)] AND:

¶31

1 . C L SHANKARE GOWDA S/O LATE C.B. LINGE GOWDA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,

¶32

2 . T. SHANKARE GOWDA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, S/OCHIKKATHAMMAE GOWDA,

¶33

3 . CHIKKONU AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, S/O CHIKKATHAMMAE GOWDA,

¶34

4 . D. JAYARAMU AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, S/O DODDATHAMME GOWDA,

¶35

5 . PUTTASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, S/O LINGE GOWDA,

¶36

6 . SMT. PADMAMMA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, W/O LATE LINGE GOWDA, ALL ARE R/O CHALLANAYAKANAHALLI VILLAGE, BASARALU HOBLI, MANDYA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 401.

¶37

…RESPONDENTS

¶38

[BY SMT. KAVYA ANIL KUMAR, ADV., FOR SRI ANIL KUMAR, ADV., FOR R1 TO R6 (PH)]

¶39

THIS RSA IS FILED U/S. 100 R/W ORDER 41 RULE 1 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT & DECREE DATED 30.06.2014 PASSED IN R.A.NO.31/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDL. SR. CIVIL JUDGE, MANDYA, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DTD 18.04.2012

¶40

¶41

NC: 2024:KHC:51302 RSA No. 147 of 2015

¶42

PASSED IN OS.NO.241/2007 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN) MANDYA.

¶43

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR DICTATING JUDGMENT, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶44

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI

¶45

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶46

Challenging impugned judgment and decree dated 30.06.2014 passed by II Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Mandya, in R.A.no.31/2012 and Judgment and Decree dated 18.04.2012 by Principal Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.), Mandya, in O.S no.241/2007, this appeal is filed.

¶47

Brief facts as stated are, appellant was plaintiff in suit for permanent injunction restraining defendants from interfering with her peaceful possession and enjoyment of property bearing Sy.no.113, (old no.94) measuring 01 Acre 20 guntas situated at Challanyakanahalli village, Basralu Hobli, Mandya Taluk (' suit property ' for short). In plaint, it was stated suit property was granted to plaintiff in LND.CRU/OL/2065/1991-1992, on 23.07.1994 and grant certificate no.SC.No.67/1994-1995 issued on 30.07.1994. It was stated plaintiff got his name mutated in revenue records vide MR.no.17/94-95. And after Durasti, it was assigned

¶48

¶49

NC: 2024:KHC:51302 RSA No. 147 of 2015

¶50

'Sy.no.113' vide order dated 29.11.2005 and name entered in Record of Rights (‘RoR’, for short) vide MR no.57/2006-07. As such, she was in possession of suit property. It was stated, without any right, title or interest over suit property, defendants interfered with plaintiff's peaceful possession. Hence, plaintiff filed suit.

¶51

On appearance, defendants filed common written statement denying plaint averments, and cause of action. They denied suit property was granted to plaintiff. It was alleged, Hotte Bore Gowda - propositus had 5 sons. After his death, while CB Lingegowda was Karta of family, by order dated 20.04.1963, he was granted about 12 Acres in Sy.no.69 in Challanyakanahalli village. After durasti, it was assigned 'Sy.no.97'. Suit property i.e. Sy.no.94 was adjacent to it. After death of propositus, his five sons divided joint family properties. They were further divided. Sy.no.97 measuring 2.30 guntas and western portion of 20 guntas in Sy.no.94 (suit property) were allotted to share of Lingegowda @ Kuntegowda. No property was allotted to Chikkaputtegowda in Sy.no.97 and 94. While, extent of 02 acres 30 guntas in Sy.no.97 was allotted to Chikkathammegowda and remaining 04 Acres in Sy.no.97 was

¶52

¶53

NC: 2024:KHC:51302 RSA No. 147 of 2015

¶54

granted to CB Lingegowda. It was stated, Lingegowda @ Kuntegowda was father of defendant no.5 and father-in-law of defendant no.6. He had two sons namely, CL Lingegowda and Puttaswamygowda, who divided family properties including Sy.no.97 and Sy.no.94. It was alleged, northern extent of 01 Acre 15 guntas out of total extent of 02 Acres 30 guntas in Sy.no.97 was allotted to CL Lingegowda and remaining 01 Acre 15 guntas was allotted to Puttaswamygowda. Further, 20 guntas in Sy.no.97 was allotted to CL Lingegowda and adjacent extent of 15 guntas in Sy.no.94 was allotted to Puttaswamygowda.

¶55

It was stated, Doddathammegowda had two sons viz., Ramalingegowda and D Jayaramu. Out of 02 Acres 30 guntas in Sy.no.97, they got 01 Acre 15 guntas on northern and southern side respectively. Likewise, 20 guntas in Sy.no.94 was allotted to Jayaramu and western side of Sy.no.94 adjacent to Sy.no.97 was allotted to Ramalingegowda. Subsequently, Ramalingegowda, sold his property to D Jayaram - defendant no.4 under registered sale deed dated 29.01.2007 and he was in possession of it.

¶56

¶57

NC: 2024:KHC:51302 RSA No. 147 of 2015

¶58

Thus suit property was amongst joint family

¶59

property of defendants and subjected to partition between them. Hence, there was no cause of action to plaintiff to file suit. They contended that grant in favour of plaintiff was illegal and they challenged same in RAno.16/2007-08 before Assistant Commissioner, Mandya (' AC ' for short) wherein entries in RoRs, consequent to grant were stayed. It was submitted, suit was bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder, as defendants no.1 to 3 were unnecessary parties, while C. Boregowda was not made party to suit. Hence, sought for dismissal of suit.

¶60

Based on pleadings, trial Court framed following

¶61

issues:

¶62

Whether the plaintiff proves that she is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property as on the date of the suit?

¶63

Whether the plaintiff proves the alleged interference by the defendants?

¶64

Whether the plaintiff is entitle for sought relief?

¶65

What order or decree?

¶66

To substantiate her case, Power of Attorney holder

¶67

of plaintiff and two others were examined as PWs.1 to 3 and

¶68

¶69

NC: 2024:KHC:51302 RSA No. 147 of 2015

¶70

Exhibits P.1 to P.23 were got marked. On behalf of defendants,

¶71

defendants no.4, 3, 5, 1 and 6 respectively and another were examined as DWs.1 to 6 and Exhibits D1 to 7 were got marked.

¶72

On consideration, trial Court answered issues no.1

¶73

to 3 in negative and issue no.4 by dismissing suit. Aggrieved, plaintiff filed R.A.no.31/2012 on various grounds, based on which first appellate Court framed following points:

¶74

Whether the plaintiff proves her lawful possession and enjoyment over that the suit schedule property and also interference to her possession and enjoyment of the same as contended by her?

¶75

Whether any interference is called for by this court with regard to the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court and if so, to what extent?

¶76

What order?

¶77

On consideration, it answered points no.1 and 2 in

¶78

negative and point no.3 by dismissing appeal. Aggrieved this

¶79

appeal is filed.

¶80

Sri TP Vivekananda, learned counsel for plaintiff submitted, appeal was against concurrent finding in suit for permanent injunction. It was submitted both Courts erroneously

¶81

¶82

NC: 2024:KHC:51302 RSA No. 147 of 2015

¶83

dismissed suit on ground that plaintiff failed to establish possession over suit property. It was submitted, indisputably, suit property was granted to plaintiff as per Ex.P3. Merely on ground that grant was canceled by AC and cancellation was confirmed by DC, it holds plaintiff failed to prove possession over suit property. It was submitted, orders passed by AC and DC were challenged by plaintiff in W.P.no.14446/2011 before this Court wherein interim order of stay was granted on 17.05.2011. It was submitted, first appellate Court though aware of same, failed to consider it while passing impugned judgment and decree.

¶84

It was submitted, thereafter writ petition was disposed by order dated 14.09.2016 by setting aside impugned orders and remitting matter back to AC for fresh consideration. It was further submitted, defendant had challenged order of temporary injunction granted by trial Court and confirmed in MA.no.36/2011 and dismissed by this Court in WP.no.41325/2011. It was submitted, IA no.1/2024 was filed under Order XLI Rule 27 of CPC for permission to lead additional evidence by way of production of documents, namely, copies of interim and final orders in

¶85

¶86

NC: 2024:KHC:51302 RSA No. 147 of 2015

¶87

W.P.no.14446/2011; final order in W.P.no.41325/2011 and

¶88

order sheet of proceedings before AC. It was submitted since order passed by first appellate Court was in ignorance of same and as said documents were necessary for passing judgment, learned counsel prayed for allowing application and for remand of matter to first appellate Court. He submitted following substantial questions of law would arise for consideration and prayed for allowing appeal by answering same in favour of plaintiff:

¶89

i) Whether IA no.1/2024 filed by plaintiff for permission to lead additional evidence requires to be allowed?

¶90

ii) Whether judgment and decree passed by first appellate Court is contrary to material on record and calls for interference?

¶91

On other hand, Smt.Kavya Anil Kumar, learned counsel for defendants opposed appeal. It was submitted, when plaintiff failed to establish possession over suit property, both Courts were justified in dismissing suit. It was submitted, while answering issue no.1, trial Court referred to Exs.D7 and Ex.P.23 - orders passed by AC and DC, whereunder, order of grant based on which plaintiff was seeking to establish lawful possession, was set aside. Taking note of same, it dismissed suit. First appellate Court dismissed appeal. It was submitted,

¶92

10 -

¶93

NC: 2024:KHC:51302 RSA No. 147 of 2015

¶94

material produced by defendants on other hand, established settled possession. Therefore, there was no justification to permit additional evidence. Thus, as no substantial question of law arose for consideration, she prayed for dismissal of appeal.

¶95

Heard learned counsel, perused impugned judgment and decree and record.

¶96

This appeal is by plaintiff against concurrent findings in suit for permanent injunction. Before trial Court, plaintiff asserted suit property, a part of Sy.no.94, was granted to her under Ex.P.3 order on 23.07.1994 and after durasti assigned ‘Sy.no.113’, since then she was in possession. When defendants tried to disturb her possession, suit was filed. To substantiate grant, entry of name and being in possession of suit property, plaintiff relied on Exs.P4, 8 - Mutation register extracts, Ex.P.5, 9, 10 and 13 - RTCs, Ex.P6 - Aakarband, Exs.P.7 and 16 - Sketches, Exs.P.11, 12 and 19 - tax paid receipts, Ex.P.14 and P15 - Patta book.

¶97

On other hand, defendants denied grant in favour of plaintiff. They claim that it was part of their lands and was subject to partition within their family. They claimed to be in

¶98

11 -

¶99

NC: 2024:KHC:51302 RSA No. 147 of 2015

¶100

settled possession of suit property. They relied on Ex.D.1 grant certificate issued to CB Lingegowda; Ex.D.2 - Challan for having paid upset price; Ex.D.3 - Saguvali chit and Exs.D.4 to 6 - RTCs of Sy.no.94 of year 1960-61 to 1963-64 showing grant of 1 Acre of land in Sy.no.94 of Challanayakanahalli in name of CB Lingegowda; Ex.D.7 is order passed by AC, Mandya, on 05.01.2009 setting aside grant of suit property to plaintiff.

¶101

While giving finding on issue no.1, trial Court discounted Exs.P.4 to P.21 relied upon by plaintiff on ground that said documents came into existence subsequent to and in pursuance of Ex.P.3 - grant order and Ex.D.7 - order passed by AC, Mandya, would nullified them. Hence, plaintiff failed to prove she was in lawful possession of suit property. Based on said conclusion, it answered issues in negative and dismissed suit.

¶102

While passing impugned judgment and decree, first appellate Court referred to pleadings, oral and documentary evidence as well as contentions. In course of same, it refers to Ex.P.23 - order granted by DC, Mandya, staying Ex.D.7 - order passed by AC, Mandya. However, main reason assigned for dismissal of appeal was pendency of proceedings before DC

¶103

12 -

¶104

NC: 2024:KHC:51302 RSA No. 147 of 2015

¶105

prima facie indicated revenue authorities had not considered matter properly while granting suit property to plaintiff and as matter was still under consideration.

¶106

As noted above, appellant has sought permission to lead additional evidence by way of production of documents namely, copies of interim order and final order in W.P.no.14446/2011; final order passed in W.P.no.41325/2011 and order sheet of proceedings before AC. Perusal of same would indicate that as early as on 17.05.2011, interim order of stay was granted against order passed by AC and DC, Mandya, whereas first appellate Court disposed of appeal on 30.06.2014. It is also seen that W.P.no.14446/2011 came to be allowed on 14.09.2016, by quashing order passed by AC and DC, Mandya and remanding matter back to AC for fresh consideration. Order dated 22.11.2011 passed in W.P.no.32201/2011 and W.P.no.41325/2011 would indicate confirmation of order of interim temporary injunction granted in favour of plaintiff herein during pendency of O.S.no.241/2007. Order sheet of proceedings in R.A.no.2002/2017 would show pendency of proceedings before AC, Mandya, in pursuance of order of remand passed by this Court.

¶107

13 -

¶108

NC: 2024:KHC:51302 RSA No. 147 of 2015

¶109

Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. Ibrahim Uddin , reported (2012) 8 SCC 148, while

¶110

considering application under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC, has held as under:

¶111

"36. The general principle is that the appellate court should not travel outside the record of the lower court and cannot take any evidence in appeal. However, as an exception, Order 41 Rule 27 CPC enables the appellate court to take additional evidence in exceptional circumstances. The appellate court may permit additional evidence only and only if the conditions laid down in this Rule are found to exist. The parties are not entitled, as of right, to the admission of such evidence. Thus, the provision does not apply, when on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court can pronounce a satisfactory judgment. The matter is entirely within the discretion of the court and is to be used sparingly. Such a discretion is only a judicial discretion circumscribed by the limitation specified in the Rule itself. (Vide K. Venkataramiah v. A. Seetharama Reddy [AIR 1963 SC 1526] , Municipal Corpn. of Greater Bombay v. Lala Pancham [AIR 1965 SC 1008], Soonda Ram v. Rameshwarlal [(1975) 3 SCC 698 : AIR 1975 SC 479] and Syed Abdul Khader v. Rami Reddy [(1979) 2 SCC 601 : AIR 1979 SC 553].

¶112

37. The appellate court should not ordinarily allow new evidence to be adduced in order to enable a party to raise a new point in appeal. Similarly, where a party on whom the onus of proving a certain point lies fails to discharge the onus, he is not entitled to a fresh opportunity to produce evidence, as the court can, in such a case, pronounce judgment against him and does not require any additional evidence to enable it to pronounce

¶113

14 -

¶114

NC: 2024:KHC:51302 RSA No. 147 of 2015

¶115

judgment. (Vide Haji Mohammed Ishaq v. Mohd. Iqbal and Mohd. Ali and Co. [(1978) 2 SCC 493 : AIR 1978 SC 798] )

¶116

38. Under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC, the appellate court has the power to allow a document to be produced and a witness to be examined. But the requirement of the said court must be limited to those cases where it found it necessary to obtain such evidence for enabling it to pronounce judgment. This provision does not entitle the appellate court to let in fresh evidence at the appellate stage where even without such evidence it can pronounce judgment in a case. It does not entitle the appellate court to let in fresh evidence only for the purpose of pronouncing judgment in a particular way. In other words, it is only for removing a lacuna in the evidence that the appellate court is empowered to admit additional evidence. (Vide Lala Pancham [AIR 1965 SC 1008].

¶117

39. It is not the business of the appellate court to supplement the evidence adduced by one party or the other in the lower court. Hence, in the absence of satisfactory reasons for the non-production of the evidence in the trial court , additional evidence should not be admitted in appeal as a party guilty of remissness in the lower court is not entitled to the indulgence of being allowed to give further evidence under this Rule. So a party who had ample opportunity to produce certain evidence in the lower court but failed to do so or elected not to do so, cannot have it admitted in appeal. (Vide State of U.P. v. Manbodhan Lal Srivastava [AIR 1957 SC 912] and S. Rajagopal v. C.M. Armugam [AIR 1969 SC 101] .)

¶118

40. The inadvertence of the party or his inability to understand the legal issues involved or the wrong advice of a pleader or the negligence of a pleader or that the party did not realise the importance of a document does not constitute a “substantial cause”

¶119

15 -

¶120

NC: 2024:KHC:51302 RSA No. 147 of 2015

¶121

within the meaning of this Rule. The mere fact that certain evidence is important, is not in itself a sufficient ground for admitting that evidence in appeal.

¶122

41. The words “for any other substantial cause” must be read with the word “requires” in the beginning of the sentence, so that it is only where, for any other substantial cause, the appellate court requires additional evidence, that this Rule will apply e.g. when evidence has been taken by the lower court so imperfectly that the appellate court cannot pass a satisfactory judgment.

¶123

42. Whenever the appellate court admits additional evidence it should record its reasons for doing so (sub-rule (2)). It is a salutary provision which operates as a check against a too easy reception of evidence at a late stage of litigation and the statement of reasons may inspire confidence and disarm objection. Another reason of this requirement is that, where a further appeal lies from the decision, the record of reasons will be useful and necessary for the court of further appeal to see, if the discretion under this Rule has been properly exercised by the court below. The omission to record the reasons must, therefore, be treated as a serious defect . But this provision is only directory and not mandatory, if the reception of such evidence can be justified under the Rule.

¶124

43. The reasons need not be recorded in a separate order provided they are embodied in the judgment of the appellate court. A mere reference to the peculiar circumstances of the case, or mere statement that the evidence is necessary to pronounce judgment, or that the additional evidence is required to be admitted in the interests of justice, or that there is no reason to reject the prayer for the admission of the additional evidence, is not enough compliance with the requirement as to recording of reasons.

¶125

16 -

¶126

NC: 2024:KHC:51302 RSA No. 147 of 2015

¶127

44. It is a settled legal proposition that not only administrative order, but also judicial order must be supported by reasons, recorded in it. Thus, while deciding an issue, the court is bound to give reasons for its conclusion. It is the duty and obligation on the part of the court to record reasons while disposing of the case. The hallmark of order and exercise of judicial power by a judicial forum is for the forum to disclose its reasons by itself and giving of reasons has always been insisted upon as one of the fundamentals of sound administration of the justice delivery system, to make it known that there had been proper and due application of mind to the issue before the court and also as an essential requisite of the principles of natural justice. The reason is the heartbeat of every conclusion. It introduces clarity in an order and without the same, the order becomes lifeless. Reasons substitute subjectivity with objectivity. The absence of reasons renders an order indefensible/unsustainable, particularly when the order is subject to further challenge before a higher forum. Recording of reasons is the principle of natural justice and every judicial order must be supported by reasons recorded in writing. It ensures transparency and fairness in decision-making. The person who is adversely affected must know why his application has been rejected. (Vide State of Orissa v. Dhaniram Luhar [(2004) 5 SCC 568 : (2008) 2 SCC (Cri) 49 : AIR 2004 SC 1794] , State of Uttaranchal v. Sunil Kumar Singh Negi [(2008) 11 SCC 205 : (2008) 2 SCC (L&S) 1093] , Victoria Memorial Hall v. Howrah Ganatantrik Nagrik Samity [(2010) 3 SCC 732 : AIR 2010 SC 1285] and Sant Lal Gupta v. Modern Coop. Group Housing Society Ltd. [(2010) 13 SCC 336 : (2010) 4 SCC (Civ) 904] )

¶128

45. In City Improvement Trust Board v. H. Narayanaiah [(1976) 4 SCC 9 : AIR 1976 SC 2403] , while dealing with the issue, a three-Judge Bench of this Court held as under : (SCC p. 20, para 28)

¶129

17 -

¶130

NC: 2024:KHC:51302 RSA No. 147 of 2015

¶131

“ 28 . … We are of the opinion that the High Court should have recorded its reasons to show why it found the admission of such evidence to be necessary for some substantial reason. And if it found it necessary to admit it, an opportunity should have been given to the appellant to rebut any inference arising from its existence by leading other evidence.”

¶132

(emphasis added)

¶133

A similar view has been reiterated by this Court in Basayya I. Mathad v. Rudrayya S. Mathad [(2008) 3 SCC 120] .

¶134

46. A Constitution Bench of this Court in K. Venkataramiah [AIR 1963 SC 1526] , while dealing with the same issue held : (AIR p. 1529, para 13)

¶135

“ 13 . It is very much to be desired that the courts of appeal should not overlook the provisions of clause (2) of the Rule and should record their reasons for admitting additional evidence. … The omission to record the reason must therefore be treated as a serious defect. Even so, we are unable to persuade ourselves that this provision is mandatory.”

¶136

(emphasis added) In the said case, the Court after examining the record of the case came to the conclusion that the appeal was heard for a long time and the application for taking additional evidence on record was filed during the final hearing of the appeal. In such a fact situation, the order allowing such application did not vitiate for want of reasons.

¶137

47. Where the additional evidence sought to be adduced removes the cloud of doubt over the case and the evidence has a direct and important bearing on the main issue in the suit and interest of justice clearly renders it imperative that it may be allowed to be permitted on record, such application may be allowed.

¶138

18 -

¶139

NC: 2024:KHC:51302 RSA No. 147 of 2015

¶140

48. To sum up on the issue, it may be held that an application for taking additional evidence on record at a belated stage cannot be filed as a matter of right. The court can consider such an application with circumspection, provided it is covered under either of the prerequisite conditions incorporated in the statutory provisions itself. The discretion is to be exercised by the court judicially taking into consideration the relevance of the document in respect of the issues involved in the case and the circumstances under which such an evidence could not be led in the court below and as to whether the applicant had prosecuted his case before the court below diligently and as to whether such evidence is required to pronounce the judgment by the appellate court. In case the court comes to the conclusion that the application filed comes within the four corners of the statutory provisions itself, the evidence may be taken on record, however, the court must record reasons as on what basis such an application has been allowed. However, the application should not be moved at a belated stage."

¶141

It is seen, claim of plaintiff in respect of suit

¶142

property pivots on Ex.P.3 - order of grant of suit property. Though same was set aside by AC under Ex.D.7 - order and confirmed by DC in proceedings in Ex.P.23, same are stated to have been questioned and quashed by this Court in W.P.no.14446/2011. Admittedly, if plaintiff is unable to sustain order of grant of suit property in her name, suit would not be tenable. Since revenue proceedings for cancellation have not

¶143

yet attained finality as shown in documents sought to be produced as additional evidence, same would be relevant and

¶144

19 -

¶145

NC: 2024:KHC:51302 RSA No. 147 of 2015

¶146

necessary for passing proper judgment. Therefore, substantial question of law no.1 is answered in affirmative. I.A.no.1/2024 is allowed.

¶147

It is seen impugned judgment and decree by first appellate Court substantially relies on Ex.D.7 - order passed by AC, Mandya, setting aside order of grant in favour of plaintiff which is no longer in existence, in view of order passed by this Court in W.P.no.14446/2011. It is also seen that plaintiff had benefit of order of temporary injunction during pendency of suit, which was in existence on date of passing of impugned judgment and decree. Therefore, substantial question of law no.2 would require to be answered partly in affirmative. In view of same, matter requires to be remitted matter back to first appellate Court for reconsideration. Hence, following:

¶148

ORDER

¶149

(i) Appeal is allowed in part, judgment and decree dated 30.06.2014 passed by II Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Mandya, in R.A.no.31/2012 is set-aside and restored.

¶150

(ii) Since, I.A.no.1/2024 filed under Order XLI Rule 27 of CPC is allowed, first appellate Court shall permit parties to lead

¶151

20 -

¶152

NC: 2024:KHC:51302 RSA No. 147 of 2015

¶153

additional evidence within such time as fixed by it.

¶154

(iii) Appellate Court shall issue notice to parties and expedite disposal of appeal. Parties to co-perate for early disposal of appeal.

¶155

(iv) First appellate Court shall as far as possible endeavour to dispose of appeal within period of six months from today, in accordance with law.

¶156

Sd/(RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE

¶157

PSG,AV,GRD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 79

Smt Ningamma v. C L Shankare Gowda

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Ningamma v. C L Shankare Gowda

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

G S Harirao Vs G S Janardhanarao

Smt Tharamma Vs Mohammed Ummer Sab

Abdul Khader Vs Smt. Arathi Vishwanath

Sri P K Shantharaju Vs Sri P R Shivananda

Smt. Ganapu Hengsu Vs Smt. Kamala Devadagithi

Sri Shivarudrappa Vs Sri Shivalingappa