Allowed¶4

L.Murugan v. Kolanji

Madras HC4 Feb 2025CMP/4166/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Additional evidence at appellate stage permitted; Deposit of Title Deeds dated 11.01.2016; deceased S.R. Anbalagan; M/s. Equitos Finance Ltd.; Document No.38 of 2016; Sub Registrar Rishivanthiyam; Section 73 of the Evidence Act, 1872; trial Court signature comparison; suit filed 03.11.2018 pending till 29.11.2019; document not produced before trial Court; counsel's mistake; counter affidavit; reliance on detailed order in C.M.P.No.4164 of 2022 dated 04.02.2025; CMP.No.4166 of 2022 in AS.No.110 of 2022; Madras High Court; N. Sathish Kumar, J.; 04.02.2025.

What did the court decide?

Permission granted to the appellant to file a copy of the registered memorandum of Deposit of Title Deeds dated 11.01.2016, executed by the deceased S.R.Anbalagan in favour of M/s. Equitos Finance Ltd. (Document No.38 of 2016, Sub Registrar, Rishivanthiyam), as additional evidence.

L.Murugan Vs Kolanji — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶4

Issue for consideration

Whether the appellant is entitled to file a copy of the registered memorandum of Deposit of Title Deeds dated 11.01.2016 (Document No.38 of 2016) as additional evidence at the appellate stage in AS.No.110 of 2022.

¶3

Ratio / Principle

In the light of the detailed order dated 04.02.2025 passed in C.M.P.No.4164 of 2022 and on considering the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, this Court is of the view that the petitioner (appellant) has made out the case to file the registered memorandum of Deposit of Title Deeds dated 11.01.2016 as additional evidence; accordingly, the petition is allowed.

¶4

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court — CMP.No.4166 of 2022 in AS.No.110 of 2022 (N. Sathish Kumar, J.) — Decision date 04.02.2025. Additional evidence in appeal — petition allowed. The appellant sought leave to file a copy of the registered memorandum of Deposit of Title Deeds dated 11.01.2016, executed by the deceased S.R. Anbalagan in favour of M/s. Equitos Finance Ltd. (Document No.38 of 2016, Sub Registrar, Rishivanthiyam). Per the affidavit filed in support, the document had been given to the trial Court Advocate but was not brought on record by counsel by mistake. The respondents' counter affidavit noted that the trial Court had already compared the signature by exercising its power under Section 73 of the Evidence Act, 1872, that the suit was filed on 03.11.2018 and pending till 29.11.2019, and that the document sought to be filed before this Court had not been produced before the trial Court; they contended the appellant was not entitled to adduce fresh evidence at the appellate stage. Taking into account the detailed order passed in C.M.P.No.4164 of 2022 dated 04.02.2025 and the averments in the supporting affidavit, the Court held that the petitioner had made out the case and allowed the petition.

L.Murugan v. Kolanji

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

L.Murugan v. Kolanji

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Murugan Vs Sathya

Swami Karshni Anubhavanand Vs Kothandam

Tmt.S.Chandra Vs Thiru. Sathyamoorthy

L.Murugan Vs Kolanji

S.Vivekanandan Vs Selva Stone Export Ltd.

R.Senthilkumar Vs R.Soundarakumar