Karnataka High Court
G N Lakshminarayana vs Sharadamma W/O Late G C Channappa on 24 November, 2023
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:42551
RSA No. 1298 of 2007
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1298 OF 2007 (DEC)
BETWEEN:
1. G N LAKSHMINARAYANA
S/O LATE G.C. NANJUNDAIAH
SINCE DEAD BY HIS LR'S
1A. K.R. LASMIDEVI
W/O G.N. LAKSHMINARAYANA
1B. G.L. SHIVAKUMAR
S/O G.N. LAKSHMINARAYANA
1C. G.L. SHANKAR
S/O G.N. LAKSHMINARAYANA
Digitally signed 2. G N KRISHNA MURTHY
by R DEEPA S/O LATE G.C.NANJUNDAIAH
Location: High AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
Court of
Karnataka 3. G N MANJUNATH
S/O LATE G.C.NANJUNDAIAH
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
APPELLANTS 1(A-C), 2, 3 ARE
R/AT No.121
MARKET ROAD
DODDABALLAPURA TOWN
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT.
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:42551
RSA No. 1298 of 2007
4. G N VENKATESH
S/O LATE G.C.NANJUNDAIAH
SINCE DEAD BY HIS LR'S
4A. SMT. MANGALAGOWRAMMA K.N.
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
W/O LATE G.N. VENKATESH
4B. VASANTH KUMAR G.V.
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
W/O LATE G.N. VENKATESH
4C. NITHIN G.V.
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
S/O LATE G.N. VENKATESH
APPELLANTS 4A TO 4C ARE
R/AT No.2669
WARD No.3, 22ND DIVISION
HEMAVATHI PETE
DODDABALLAPURA TOWN
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 561 203
5. G N RAMACHANDRA @ RAMU
S/O LATE G.C.NANJUNDAIAH
SINCE DEAD BY HIS LR'S
5A. G.R. PRASHANTH
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
S/O LATE G.N. RAMACHANDRA @ RAMU
5B. NAVEEN G.R.
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
S/O LATE G.N. RAMACHANDRA @ RAMU
5C. G.R. ROOPASHREE
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
D/O LATE G.N. RAMACHANDRA @ RAMU
APPELLANTS 5A TO 5C ARE
R/AT No.2669
WARD No.3, 22ND DIVISION
-3-
NC: 2023:KHC:42551
RSA No. 1298 of 2007
HEMAVATHI PETE
DODDABALLAPURA TOWN
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 561 203
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. SHIVASHANKAR, ADVOCATE FOR A1(B&C), A2, A3
SRI. ARAVIND REDDY H., ADVOCATE FOR A1(B,C), A2, A3
AND ALSO FOR LR'S OF A4(A-C) & LR'S OF A5 AS A5(A-C)
AND:
1. SHARADAMMA
W/O LATE G C CHANNAPPA
SINCE DEAD BY HIS LR'S
2. G C SHIVANANDA
S/O LATE G C CHANNAPPA
SINCE DEAD BY HIS LR'S
2A SMT. D.K. SUMITHRA
W/O LATE SIVANANDA
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
2B BAGYALAKSHMI
D/O LATE SIVANANDA
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS
2C SRIDEVI
D/O LATE SIVANANDA
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS
2D RAKSHITH
S/O LATE SIVANANDA
AGED MAJOR
LR'S 2A TO 2D ARE R/AT
No.580, BALAJI RESIDENCY
DEAL HOME TOWNSHIP
RAJARAJESHWARINAGAR
BENGALURU - 560 098.
-4-
NC: 2023:KHC:42551
RSA No. 1298 of 2007
3. G C PRAKASH
S/O LATE G C CHANNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
4. G C SRINIVAS
S/O LATE G C CHANNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
5. G C CHOWDAPPA
S/O LATE G C CHANNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
6. G C SHIVAKUMAR
S/O LATE G C CHANNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
7. G C PARAMESH
S/O LATE G C CHANNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
RESPONDENTS 1 TO 7 ARE
R/AT NO.1451, DEVARAJNAGAR,
DODDABALLAPURA TOWN,
BANGALORE RURAL DIST. - 561 203
8. G C SOWBHAGYA
D/O LATE G C CHANNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
R/AT SHANTHINAGAR,
MUTHYALAMMA TEMPLE ROAD,
DODDABALLAPURA TOWN,
BANGALORE RURAL DIST - 561 203
9. G C RAJALAKSHMI
D/O LATE G C CHANNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
12TH CROSS, CUBBONPET,
BANGALORE-560 002
10. G C MAHALAKSHMI
D/O LATE G C CHANNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
-5-
NC: 2023:KHC:42551
RSA No. 1298 of 2007
R/AT BOMMASANDRA,
D. PLAYA, GOWRIBIDANURU TQ.,
KOLAR DIST. - 563 101
...RESPONDENTS
[(BY SRI. UMESH MOOLIMANI &
SRI. SHIVAKUMAR SWAMY, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. S.V. PRAKASH, ADVOCATE FOR R2, R2(2), R2(3),
R2(4), R3, R4-R8, R9 & R10
VIDE ORDER DATED 25.05.2023 SERVICE HELD
SUFFICIENT IN R/O R2(2) & R2(3) ARE LR'S OF DECEASED
R2(1)]
THIS RSA IS FILED U/S 100 OF CPC AGAINST THE
JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DATED 11.01.2007 PASSED IN
RA.NO.48/2002(OLD.NO.94/00) ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL
JUDGE (SR.DN.) DODDABALLAPUR, DISMISSING THE APPEAL
AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DT.
15.04.2000 PASSED IN OS.NO.226/1989 ON THE FILE OF THE
ADDL.CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN.) & JMFC DODDABALLAPURA.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This second appeal is filed by the appellants challenging
the judgment and decree dated 11.01.2007, passed in
R.A.No.48/2002 (Old No.94/2000) by the Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.),
Doddaballapura, confirming the judgment and decree dated
15.04.2000 passed in O.S.No.226/1989 by the Additional Civil
Judge (Jr. Dn.) Doddaballapura.
NC: 2023:KHC:42551
2. For the sake of conveniences parties are referred to as
per their ranking before the trial Court. The appellants are the
defendants and respondents are the plaintiffs.
3. The brief facts leading rise to filing of this appeal are
as under:
The plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration of title and
permanent injunction. It is contended that one original
propositus Gutte Chowdappa had two wives. Out of wedlock
through first wife, Sri G.C.Nanjunda Murthy was born and out
of the wedlock through second wife Thimmakka, they had three
sons namely G.C.Channappa, G.C.Nanjunda Murthy and
Gurunanjunda Murthy. The said Gutte Chowdappa died about
25 years back leaving behind his children. During his lifetime,
himself and his sons were residing jointly and possessing
movable and other immovable property belongs to joint family
and they acquired some of the property out of earnings from
the joint family property. During the lifetime of said Gutte
Chowdappa, he had decided to partition the joint family
property. Accordingly, the Panchayath partition was effected on
12.09.1951 and the Panchayath palupatti was drawn which was
signed by Gutte Chowdappa and his sons and on the very same
NC: 2023:KHC:42551
day, the Will was also executed by Gutte Chowdappa. In the
said partition, 'A' schedule property of the panchayath palupatti
was allotted to the share of G.C.Channappa i.e., the husband of
plaintiff No.1 and father of plaintiff Nos.2 to 10 and 'B' schedule
property of the panchayath palupatti was allotted to the share
of G.C.Nanjundamurthy and the remaining property was
retained by Gutte Chowdappa and G.C.Nanjunda as both of
them wanted to continue to live jointly. Since from the date of
partition, the members of the family started to live separately
by enjoying their respective shares allotted to them. It is
contended that apart from 'A' schedule property to the
panchayath palupatti, two houses and vacant site was allotted
to the share of G.C.Channappa. During the lifetime of
G.C.Channappa, he was in peaceful possession and enjoyment
of the suit schedule property along with the plaintiffs. He died
in the year 1985 leaving behind the plaintiffs and the plaintiffs
have succeeded to the suit schedule property and after the
death of G.C.Channappa, the property was transferred in the
name of the plaintiffs and the plaintiffs are paying the tax. It is
contended that the defendants have no right, title or interest
over the suit schedule property. The defendants tried to
NC: 2023:KHC:42551
interfere into the peaceful possession. The plaintiffs lodged a
complaint against the defendants and the criminal case was
registered against the defendants. Inspite of it, the defendants
have not given up the illegal acts. Hence, cause of action arose
for the plaintiffs to file a suit for declaration of title and
permanent injunction.
4. Defendant No.1 filed the written statement denying
the averments made in the plaint and other defendants
adopted the same. It is denied that the Gutte Chowdappa died
about 25 years back. It is admitted that on 12.09.1951 there
was a partition in the joint family properties and at the time,
Will was executed by Gutte Chowdappa on 06.05.1952 and not
on 12.09.1951 as claimed by the plaintiffs in the plaint. The
said Will was executed by late Gutte Chowdappa in favour of
mother of the defendants, which includes the schedule landed
property. Further, it is contended that in the partition it is not
clear whether late G.C.Channappa bequeathed the suit
schedule property. It is contended that the defendants are not
aware about the property given to the other uncles of the
defendants i.e., G.C.Najundamurthy and
G.C.Gurunanjundamurthy. It is admitted that the remaining
NC: 2023:KHC:42551
property was retained by the grandfather i.e., Gutte
Chowdappa among other movables and immovable properties,
which include the suit schedule property. It is contended that
the plaintiffs have created panchayath palupatti. Further, it is
contended that the suit schedule landed property is in
possession and enjoyment of the father of the defendants and
all the revenue records clearly go to establish that it is in his
possession. Thereafter, the father of the defendants died and
the suit schedule property is in peaceful possession and
enjoyment of the defendants' mother Smt. Gowramma and the
entire documents are still in her name. It is contended that on
20.03.1963, late G.C.Channappa executed a sale agreement in
the presence of his brother agreeing to sell the suit schedule
property in favour of father of the defendants for valuable
consideration and since then, the defendants father and after
his death his wife i.e., these defendants' mother are in peaceful
possession and enjoyment of the same and cultivating the land
even today without any interruption. It is contended that some
of the documents are with the plaintiffs and the said documents
were got created by the plaintiffs. The legal notice was issued
to the Government for issuing a false revenue documents in
- 10 -
NC: 2023:KHC:42551
favour of the plaintiffs. It is contended that the plaintiffs have
no right, title or interest over the schedule property and there
is no cause of action to file a suit. It is contended that the first
plaintiff's husband and father of late G.C.Channappa executed a
sale agreement and took release from 20.03.1963 the date on
which the possession was handed over to the father of the
defendants. It is contended that the defendants dug-up a well
and constructed the same by obtaining a loan from P.L.D.
Bank. The suit land in question does not belongs to the
plaintiffs. Hence, prayed to dismiss the suit.
5. Defendant Nos.2 to 4 filed a memo adopting the
written statement filed by defendant No.1.
6. The plaintiffs filed a re-joinder to the written
statement filed by defendant No.1 denying the contents of the
written statement and prayed to decree the suit.
7. The Trial Court, on the basis of the above said
pleadings, framed the following issues:
1. Whether the plaintiffs prove that the suit
schedule property was allotted to the share of
- 11 -
NC: 2023:KHC:42551
deceased G.C.Channappa in a partition dated
12.09.1951?
2. Whether the plaintiffs prove that ever since from
the date of partition, they are in exclusive
possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule
property without any interference?
3. Whether the plaintiffs prove that there was an
interference from the defendants?
4. Whether the defendants prove that the plaint
schedule property was not allotted to the share of
deceased G.C.Channappa?
5. Whether the defendants prove that they have
perfected their title to the suit schedule property
by way of adverse possession?
6. Whether the defendants prove that deceased
G.C.Channappa had executed an agreement to
sell dated 20.03.1963 in favour of their father in
respect of the suit schedule property agreeing to
sell the same?
7. Whether the defendants prove that the suit is bad
for non-joinder of necessary party?
8. What decree or order?
- 12 -
NC: 2023:KHC:42551
8. In order to prove the case of the plaintiffs, the
plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 examined themselves as PW-1 and PW-2
and got examined three witnesses as PW-3 to PW-5 and got
marked 6 documents as Exs.P1 to P6. Defendant No.3
examined as DW-1 and got examined two witnesses as DW-2 &
DW-3 and got marked 15 documents as Exs.D1 to D15. The
trial Court on assessment of oral and documentary evidence,
answered issue Nos.1 to 3 in the affirmative, issue Nos.4 to 7
in the negative and issue No.8 as per final order and
consequently, decreed the suit of the plaintiffs. It is ordered
and declared that the plaintiffs are the absolute owners of the
suit schedule property. The defendants are restrained by way of
permanent injunction from interfering with plaintiffs' peaceful
possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property.
9. The defendants aggrieved by the judgment and
decree passed in the above said suit, filed an appeal in
R.A.No.48/2002(New) R.A.No.94/2000(old) before the Civil
Judge (Sr. Dn.), Doddaballapura. The First Appellate Court,
after hearing the parties, has framed the following points for
consideration:
- 13 -
NC: 2023:KHC:42551
"Whether the impugned judgment and decree
of the trial Court is illegal, arbitrary, perverse or
contrary to the facts and circumstances of the
case calling for interference?"
10. The First Appellate Court, on re-assessment of the
oral and documentary evidence placed on record by the parties,
answered point in the negative and consequently, dismissed
the appeal filed by the defendants, confirming the judgment
and decree passed by the trial Court. The defendants,
aggrieved by the judgments and decrees passed by the courts
below, have filed this second appeal.
11. This court admitted the appeal on the following
substantial question of law :
1. Whether the courts below were correct and
justified in decreeing the suit holding that there
was partition of the joint family properties on
12.09.1951 as per exhibit P1 without considering
the rebuttal evidence placed by the defendants
by producing exhibit D1 to D15 to dispute the
same?
2. Whether the courts below were correct in
decreeing the suit without taking into
consideration the evidence produced by the
- 14 -
NC: 2023:KHC:42551
defendants regarding possession of defendants
over the suit schedule property?
3. Whether lower appellate court was justified in
dismissing the application filed by
defendants/appellants for additional evidence?
12. Heard learned counsel for the defendants and
learned counsel for the plaintiffs.
13. Learned counsel for the defendants submits that the
plaintiffs have failed to prove the partition alleged to have been
taken place on 12.09.1951. He submits that the defendants are
in possession of the suit schedule property. Further, he submits
that the defendants have produced the documents Exs.D1 to
D15 to establish that the defendants are in possession of the
suit schedule property. He submits that though the Courts
below placed a reliance on Ex.P1, has passed the impugned
judgments and decrees. He submits that Ex.P1 is inadmissible
in evidence. The Courts below have committed an error in
placing a reliance on inadmissible document. He further
submits that the Courts below have not properly appreciated
the evidence of the defendants. Hence, on these grounds, he
prays to allow the appeal.
- 15 -
NC: 2023:KHC:42551
14. Per contra, learned counsel for the plaintiffs submits
that there was a partition between the plaintiffs and the
defendants amongst the family members of the plaintiffs and
the defendants on 12.09.1951 and the said partition was
reduced into writing on 12.09.1951. He further submits that the
said fact was admitted by DW.3 in the course of cross-
examination. The trial Court considering the admission of DW.3
and Ex.P1 has rightly held that there was a partition between
the family members of the plaintiffs and the defendants and the
same was reduced into writing as per Ex.P1. On the strength of
Ex.P1, names of family members were entered in the revenue
records. Subsequently, the defendants got deleted the names
of the parties in the revenue records. He further submits that
though the plaintiffs have produced Ex.P1 also filed an
application before the trial Court seeking a direction to
defendant No.1 to produce the original of Ex.P1. Though the
Court has passed an order but the defendant No.1 did not filed
a memo stating that defendant No.1 is not in possession of
original Ex.P1. He further submits that DW.3 in the course of
cross-examination has admitted that he possess original of
Ex.P1 and there is no difficulty in producing original of Ex.P1.
- 16 -
NC: 2023:KHC:42551
Hence, he submits that defendant No.1 has not produced the
original of Ex.P1 and the trial Court has rightly drawn an
adverse inference against defendant No.1 and rightly passed
the impugned judgment. Hence, the judgment and decree
passed by the trial Court is just and proper and does not call
for any interference. Hence, he prays to dismiss the appeal.
15. Perused the records and considered the
submissions of learned counsel for the parties.
16. Substantial questions of law Nos.1 to 3:
Substantial question of law Nos.1 to 3 are taken together for
common discussion as they are interlinked with each other.
17. Plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 were examined themselves as
PW.1 and PW.2 and reiterated the plaint averments in the
examination-in-chief and contended that there was a partition
in the family of the plaintiffs and defendants on 12.09.1951 and
the suit schedule properties were fallen to the share of
deceased G.C.Channappa and document was executed. The
said document was marked as Ex.P1. From the perusal of
Ex.P1, the said land bearing Sy.No.61/3 measuring 1 acre 37
- 17 -
NC: 2023:KHC:42551
guntas was allotted to the share of first plaintiff's husband
along with other properties. On the strength of Ex.P1, first
plaintiff's husband name was entered in the revenue records. In
order to prove the case of the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs have
produced Ex.P2 which stands in the name of the first plaintiff's
husband in the year 1986-87 and after his demise, the katha
was changed in the name of the plaintiffs and further the
plaintiffs have produced Exs.P5 and 6 i.e., the record of rights,
which discloses the suit schedule property was standing in the
name of first plaintiff's husband. Further, the plaintiffs in order
to prove the relationship between the parties, examined PW.3
to PW.5, who have deposed that there was a partition between
the family members on 12.09.1951 and as per partition deed,
the parties were put in possession of their respective shares
and on the basis of the said partition, the names of the
respective parties were entered in the revenue records. In
rebuttal, DW.3 was examined and he has deposed that the said
land belongs to the defendants as his father was growing
several crops like ragi etc. Further, he has deposed that there
was a partition in the year 1951. He admits about the partition
but disputes that the property allotted to the share of husband
- 18 -
NC: 2023:KHC:42551
of plaintiff No.1 was not the suit land, but the different land and
further deposed that G.C.Channappa had executed an
agreement of sale in respect of suit property in favour of his
elder brother i.e., the father of defendants on 20.03.1963 and
after the death of father, the defendants continued to be in
possession over the suit schedule property and further deposed
that the defendants are in exclusive possession without any
interference by the plaintiffs and they have acquired the title by
way of adverse possession and the defendants are in
possession of the suit schedule property for more than 40 to 45
years. Further, in order to prove the possession over the suit
schedule property, the defendants examined one witness, who
has deposed that the defendants are in possession of the suit
schedule property for more than 40 to 45 years. The trial Court
discarded the evidence of DW.2 on the ground that DW.1 in his
cross-examination has stated that the defendants are not
cultivating the suit property personally now, it is cultivated by
Virupakshappa and Shivanna on vara i.e., Will and further, he
has stated that they are cultivating the suit land for more than
12 years. Further, the defendants have not examined the
persons, who are cultivating the land on their behalf. From the
- 19 -
NC: 2023:KHC:42551
perusal of the records it is clear that there was a partition
between G.C.Channappa and his brothers. In the said partition,
the suit schedule property was fallen to the share of father of
the plaintiffs and the same was reduced into writing and
marked as Ex.P1. The execution of Ex.P1 has not been
seriously disputed by the defendants and further, DW.3 in the
course of cross-examination has clearly admitted that there
was a partition between the family members of the plaintiffs
and the defendants and the same was reduced into writing as
per Ex.P1. At one stretch, the defendants denied the partition
dated 12.09.1951 and at another stretch, the defendants
contended that the father of the plaintiffs executed an
agreement of sale in favour of the defendants and the
defendants are in possession of suit property in part
performance of the contract.
18. Further, the defendants are also claiming title by
way of adverse possession. The defendants are in possession of
the suit schedule property and they have acquired the title by
way of adverse possession. In order to claim adverse
possession, the defendants first shall admit the title of the
plaintiffs over the suit schedule property and must establish
- 20 -
NC: 2023:KHC:42551
that the defendants are in possession and enjoyment of the suit
schedule property openly without interruption and without
obstruction for more than 12 years. I would like to place
reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case
of SHAKEEL AHMED VS. SYED AKHLAQ HUSSAIN in
C.A.No.1598/2023 disposed of on 01.11.2023, wherein the
Hon'ble Apex Court held that "no title could be transferred with
respect to immovable properties on the basis of an
unregistered Agreement to Sell or on the basis of an
unregistered General Power of Attorney". The Registration Act,
1908 clearly provides that a document which requires
compulsory registration under the Act, would not confer any
right, much less a legally enforceable right to approach a Court
of Law on its basis. Even if these documents i.e. the Agreement
to Sell and the Power of Attorney were registered, still it could
not be said that the respondent would have acquired title over
the property in question.
19. Admittedly, in the instant case, the plaintiffs have
denied the execution of the alleged agreement of sale and
further, the defendants have not filed any suit for relief of
specific performance of contract on the basis of alleged
- 21 -
NC: 2023:KHC:42551
agreement of sale and further, the defendants have failed to
prove that they are in possession of the suit schedule property
for more than 12 years without any interruption.
20. Further, the plaintiffs have contended that there
was a partition in the year 1951 and the same was reduced into
writing. The plaintiffs have produced the copy of panchayath
palupatti effected between the family members.
21. The plaintiffs have filed an application for
production of original Ex.P1. The said application came to be
allowed by the trial court. Pursuant to the order passed by the
trial Court, defendant No.1 filed a memo stating that defendant
No.1 is not in possession of original Ex.P.1. The trial court
permitted the plaintiffs to lead secondary evidence and
partition deed was marked as Exaz.P.1. Further, DW.3 in the
course of cross examination has clearly admitted that he is in
possession of the original Ex.P.1 and he has no difficulty in
producing Ex.P.1. The defendants inspite of admitting in the
course of cross examination have not produced original Ex.P.1.
Hence, for withholding of document, an adverse inference has
- 22 -
NC: 2023:KHC:42551
to be drawn against the defendants under section 114(g) of
Evidence Act, 1872. The Courts below were justified in placing
reliance on Ex.P.1 and has rightly come to a conclusion, that
there was partition in the joint family properties on 12.09.1951
as per Ex.P.1.
22. In rebuttal, the defendants have not produced any
records to show that there was no partition as alleged by the
plaintiffs in the plaint on 12.09.1951. Though the defendants
have produced Exs.D1 to D15, but from the admission of DW.3,
it is clear that he is in possession of original Ex.P.1. The trial
court was justified in declaining to consider Exs.D1 to D15.
Further, the plaintiffs have also produced the records to show
that by virtue of Ex.P.1, property fallen to the respective shares
were delivered to the respective parties. The trial court was
justified in recording the finding that on the basis of Ex.P.1, the
parties are in respective possession of respective shares and
the plaintiffs are in possession of the suit schedule property. In
view of the above discussion, I answer substantial question
Nos.1 and 2 in the affirmative.
- 23 -
NC: 2023:KHC:42551
23. Substantial question No.3: During the pendency of
the suit, the defendants filed an application for production of
additional documents under order 41 rule 27 of CPC. The first
appellate court has recorded a finding that from the perusal of
the documents produced along with the application, the said
documents are not related to the suit schedule property. The
object of filing the application under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC is
not to fill up lacuna. In the instant case, by way of filing an
application for production of additional documents, they are
trying to fill up the lacuna which is not permissible in the eye of
law. In view of the Hon'ble Apex court in the case of
N.KAMALAM (DEAD) AND ANOTHER VS. AYYASAMY AND ANOTHER
reported in (2001) 7 SCC 503, held that additional evidence
cannot be produced to fill up lacuna or the gaps or to patch up
omissions in the appeal. The first appellate court considering
the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, rejected the
application filed by the defendants for production of additional
evidence. In view of the above discussion, I answer substantial
question No.3 in the affirmative. Hence, I do not find any
grounds to interfere with the impugned judgments and decrees
passed by the Courts below.
- 24 -
NC: 2023:KHC:42551
24. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
The appeal is dismissed.
The judgments and decrees passed by the
courts below are hereby confirmed.
No order as to the costs.
In view of disposal of the appeal, pending I.As, if any, do
not survive for consideration and are accordingly
disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE
SSB,SKS
