Case Note & Summary
The case involves a second appeal filed by the appellant, Laxman s/o Bajirao Kondekar, against the judgment and decree of the first Appellate Court which confirmed the trial court's decree in favor of the respondents. The suit was for declaration of title and possession in respect of certain immovable property. The appellant, who was the defendant in the suit, claimed ownership based on a gift deed, while the plaintiff-respondents claimed under a sale deed. The trial court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff, holding that the sale deed was valid and the gift deed was not proved. The first Appellate Court dismissed the appeal, and the appellant filed the present second appeal. The High Court admitted the appeal on two substantial questions of law relating to the rejection of additional evidence by the first Appellate Court under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC. The appellant sought to produce certain documents as additional evidence before the first Appellate Court, which were rejected. The High Court, after hearing the parties, held that the first Appellate Court was justified in rejecting the additional evidence as the appellant failed to satisfy the conditions of Order 41 Rule 27 CPC. The court noted that the documents were not shown to be beyond the appellant's knowledge or that he could not produce them despite due diligence. The court also observed that the first Appellate Court had properly appreciated the evidence on record and that no substantial question of law arose. Consequently, the second appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Additional Evidence in Appeal - Order 41 Rule 27 CPC - The first Appellate Court is not bound to admit additional evidence unless the party satisfies the conditions under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC, such as inability to produce the document despite due diligence or that the document was not within his knowledge. The court held that the appellant failed to show that the documents could not be produced earlier or that they were not within his knowledge. (Paras 1-5) B) Property Law - Sale Deed and Gift Deed - Validity - The suit pertained to a property dispute where the plaintiff claimed ownership based on a sale deed and the defendant claimed under a gift deed. The trial court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff, and the first appellate court confirmed the decree. The second appeal was dismissed as no substantial question of law arose. (Paras 2-5) C) Civil Procedure - Second Appeal - Substantial Question of Law - Section 100 CPC - The court reiterated that the High Court in second appeal can only interfere if there is a substantial question of law. The questions framed regarding additional evidence were answered in the negative as the first appellate court's decision was justified. (Paras 1, 5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the first Appellate Court was justified in not considering the additional evidence placed on record by way of documentary evidence which had a material bearing on the subject matter of the suit, and whether the first Appellate Court was justified in outright rejecting the additional documentary evidence placed on record by the appellant.
Final Decision
The High Court answered the substantial questions of law in the negative and dismissed the second appeal with no order as to costs.
Law Points
- Order 41 Rule 27 CPC
- additional evidence in appeal
- substantial question of law
- second appeal
- property dispute
- sale deed
- gift deed
- oral evidence
- documentary evidence
- appreciation of evidence
