The High Court dismissed a Civil Revision Petition challenging the refusal of the First Appellate Court to admit additional evidence of a partition deed. The Court held that the petitioner failed to demonstrate due diligence or satisfy Order 41 Rule 27 CPC conditions.
Civil Revision Petition dismissed; no costs awarded.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
C.R.P.(NPD).No.367 of 2003
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 18.12.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.DHANABAL
C.R.P.(NPD).No.367 of 2003
1.A.Sengottaiyan (Died)
2.S.Saraswathi
6.S.Padma
(Petitioners 2 to 6 brought on record as LRS of the deceased Sole Petitioner viz., A.Sengottaiyan vide Court order dated 06.09.2022 made in CMP Nos.4985 and 4986 of 2018 in CRP(NPD).No.367 of 2003.)
... Petitioners
-Vs-
6.Gowrisankar
(Respondents 3 to 6 brought on record as LRS of the deceased 2nd respondent viz., Sengoda Gounder vide Court order dated 06.09.2022 made in CMP.No.224 to 226 of 2014 in CRP.No.367 of 2003.
... Respondents
Page 1 of 7
C.R.P.(NPD).No.367 of 2003
Prayer:- Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India, against the Order and Decree in I.A.No.123 of 2002 in
A.S.No.91 of 2001, dated 18.02.2002 on the file of District Judge, Salem.
For Petitioners : M/s.Hema Sampath, Senior Counsel assisted by B.Balavijayan
For R1 : M/s.C.S.Kiran
ORDER
This Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the petitioner as against
the order passed in I.A.No.123 of 2002 in A.S.No.91 of 2001 dated 18.02.2002,
wherein the petitioner has filed a petition under Order 41 Rule 27 and the same was dismissed by the Appellate Court along with the main appeal. Hence, the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the petitioner.
has been filed for relief of specific performance of contract. According to the plaintiff, the suit property is the sale property of the first defendant. According to the second respondent, the first respondent acquired some properties through partition between the brothers of first respondent and at the time a sum of Rs.500/- was given to the first respondent for ovelty.
Page 2 of 7
C.R.P.(NPD).No.367 of 2003
3.The first defendant purchased the property through the said amount of
Rs.500/ - and thereby the property is an ancestral property and the son of the first defendant also share holders of the property. In order to support the second respondent contention the partition deed, dated 06.06.1955 have to be marked and thereby filed an application to receive the documents. Due to the oversight and a copy of partition deed has not been produced and marked before the Trial Court and now it has to be marked as an additional evidence.
Page 3 of 7
C.R.P.(NPD).No.367 of 2003
whose decreed an appeal preferred was refused to admit evidence which ought
to have been admitted or the party seeking to produce the additional evidence establishes that not withstanding the exercise of due diligence such evidence was not knowledge or could not, after the exercise of due diligence produced by him at the time when the decree appeal against was passed or the appellate Court requires any documents to be produced or any witness to be examined to enable it to pronounce the judgment or any other substantial law. But no reasons stated by the petitioner to attract the provision of order 41 Rule 27 of C.PC. The petitioner purchased the property by holding that the property is a joint family property of the first defendant and his son, while so, he had knowledge about the above said partition deed during the time of purchase itself. But, he did not take any steps to produce the documents before the Trial Court and thereby the first Appellate Court has correctly dismissed the Application. The petitioner has failed to satisfy the conditions mentioned in the order 41 Rule 27 thereby no warrant to interfere the order of 1st appellate Court.
Page 4 of 7
C.R.P.(NPD).No.367 of 2003
Therefore marking of documents will not be served the purpose and mere marking of document is not proof of its contents. To support his contention he relied the judgment in LIC Vs. Rampad Singh Bisan 2010 11 SCC 491 wherein the Hon'ble has in para 31 as follows:
" Under the law of evidence also, it is necessary that contents of documents are required to be proved either by primary or by secondary evidence. At the most, admission of documents may amount to admission of contents but not its truth. Documents having not been produced and marked as required under the Evidence Act cannot be relied upon by the court. Contents of the document cannot be proved by merely fling in a court. "
6.On careful perusal of the said judgment it will not be applicable to the present facts of the case, because in this case the document itself is not marked and not even decision was taken about the receipt of document there by now it is premature stage.
7.Therefore, as discussed supra, this civil revision petition has no merits
and deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly, this civil revision petition is dismissed. No Costs.
18.12.2023
Internet : Yes Index : Yes/No
Page 5 of 7
C.R.P.(NPD).No.367 of 2003
Speaking order/Non-speaking order rjr
Page 6 of 7
C.R.P.(NPD).No.367 of 2003
P.DHANABAL, J
rjr
To
The District Judge, Salem.
C.R.P.(NPD).No.367 of 2003
18.12.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 7 of 7
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the Appellate Court erred in dismissing the application for admission of additional evidence regarding a partition deed.
Whether the petitioner satisfied the conditions under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC for allowing additional evidence.
Whether marking an unproduced partition deed would serve the purpose of establishing its contents.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
LIC Vs. Rampad Singh BisanExplained¶52
LIC Vs. Rampad Singh Bisan 2010 11 SCC 491 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
S.Saraswathi
S.Saraswathi
S.Baby
S.Jothi
S.Kokhila
S.Padma
P. DHANABAL
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
