Kerala High Court
Thanka vs Vijayalakshmi on 10 July, 2025
RFA 619/2016
1
2025:KER:50918
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.PRATHEEP KUMAR
THURSDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF JULY 2025 / 19TH ASHADHA, 1947
RFA NO. 619 OF 2016
OS NO.1263 OF 2011 OF II ADDITIONAL SUB COURT, THRISSUR
APPELLANTS/DEFENDANTS
1 THANKA, W/O. MANNAKATTIL KUNJUNNI @ KOCHUKRISHNAN,
AGED 87,MANNAKATTIL DESOM, VILVATTAM VILLAGEP.O
RAMAVARMAPURAM ENGINEERING COLLEGE, THRISSUR TALUK,
PIN 680 631
2 SUKUMARAN, S/O. LATE MANNAKATTIL KUNJUNNI @
KOCHUKRISHNAN, AGED 59,MANNAKATTIL DESOM, VILVATTAM
VILLAGE P.O RAMAVARMAPURAM ENGINEERING COLLEGE,
THRISSUR TALUK, PIN 680 631
3 RAJAGOPALAN, S/O. LATE MANNAKATTIL KUNJUNNI @
KOCHUKRISHNAN, AGED 53,MANNAKATTIL DESOM, VILVATTAM
VILLAGE P.O RAMAVARMAPURAM ENGINEERING COLLEGE,
THRISSUR TALUK, PIN 680 631
4 ANANDAN, S/O. LATE MANNAKATTIL KUNJUNNI @
KOCHUKRISHNAN, AGED 46,MANNAKATTIL DESOM, VILVATTAM
VILLAGE P.O RAMAVARMAPURAM ENGINEERING COLLEGE,
THRISSUR TALUK, PIN 680 631
BY ADVS.
SHRI.P.B.KRISHNAN (SR.)
SRI.P.M.NEELAKANDAN
SRI.SABU GEORGE
SRI.P.B.SUBRAMANYAN
SRI.S.V.BALAKRISHNA IYER
RESPONDENTS/PLAINTIFFS
RFA 619/2016
2
2025:KER:50918
1 VIJAYALAKSHMI,D/O. LATE MANNAKATTIL KUNJUNNI @
KOCHUKRISHNAN, & W/O. VADUVILPURAKKAL N.K
VELAYUDHAN, AGED 70 PERUMBILLISSERY DESOM, CHOVVUR
VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK, PIN 680 027
2 SATHYABHAMA,D/O. LATE MANNAKATTIL KUNJUNNI @
KOCHUKRISHNAN AND W/O. LATE PRABHAKARAN, AGED 68,
CHEMBIL HOUSE, SATHYAORABHA P.O RAMAVARMAPURAM,
THRISSUR 680 631
3 RUGMINI, D/O.LATE MANNAKATTIL KUNJUNNI @
KOCHUKRISHNAN, AND W/O. RAMACHANDRAN, AGED 65, 107,
SREENIVASAPURAM, ANAKAPUTHUR, CHENNAI 600 070,
TAMIL NADU
4 LEELA, D/O. LATE MANNAKATTIL KUNJUNNI @
KOCHUKRISHNAN AND W/O. K.K CHANDRAN, AGED 56,
SHRISHTI HOUSING COMLEX, SECTOR V, KIRITKA B WING,
FLAT NO 33, MIKA ROAD EAST, THANE, BOMBAY
5 KUMARI, D/O. LATE MANNAKATTIL KUNJUNNI @
KOCHUKRISHNAN AND W/O. MOHANAN C.K,AGED 52,CHEMBIL
HOUSE, KIZHAKKUMPATTUKARA, THRISSUR 680 005
6 DEVI, D/O. LATE MANNAKATTIL KUNJUNNI @
KOCHUKRISHNAN, AND W/O. SURESH B, AGED 50,EXECUTING
ENGINEER, FLAT NO M2, AMBIKA TOWERS, 47,VALLUVA
SALAI, 100 FT. ROAD, KARAIKUDI, TAMIL NADU
BY ADVS.
SRI.K.R.ARUN KRISHNAN
SHRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR)
SMT.DEEPA K.RADHAKRISHNAN
SHRI.JISSMON A KURIAKOSE
SHRI.SANAL C.S
SRI.P.B.SUBRAMANYAN
THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 3.7.2025, THE COURT ON 10.07.2025 DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
RFA 619/2016
3
2025:KER:50918
JUDGMENT
Dated : 10th July, 2025
The defendants in O.S.1263/2011 on the file of the II Additional Sub Court,
Thrissur, are the appellants. ((For the purpose of convenience the parties are hereafter
referred to as per their rank before the trial court.).
2. The plaintiffs filed the above suit for partition. Plaintiffs 1 to 6 are the
daughters of deceased Kunjunni and the 1 st defendant Thanka. Defendants 2 to 4 are
their sons. Kunjunni died on 29.11.1991. Admittedly the plaint schedule property item
Nos.1 and 2 belonged to late Kunjunni. According to the plaintiffs, Kunjunni died
intestate and as such, the plaintiffs 1 to 6 and defendants 1 to 4 are entitled to get 1/10
share each from the plaint schedule property. Though they have issued Ext.A2 notice
demanding partition of the properties amicably, the defendants refused to cooperate
and hence they preferred the suit for partition.
3. In the written statement filed by the defendants they have contended
that during the life time, Kunjunni assigned 14 cents from plaint schedule item No.2
in favour of the 3rd defendant and regarding the remaining property in item No.2 and
regarding item No.1 property he had executed Ext.B1 Will dated 21.5.1982.
Therefore, according to them, the plaint schedule properties are not available for
partition. Accordingly, they prayed for dismissing the suit. Thereafter, the plaint was
amended incorporating the pleadings denying execution of Ext.B1 Will as well as
Ext.B12 settlement deed. The prayer was also amended and a new prayer for
2025:KER:50918
declaring that Ext.B1 Will and B12 settlement deed are not binding on the plaintiffs
and the plaint schedule property and if required to set aside those documents was also
added.
4. The trial court framed seven issues. The evidence in the case consists of
the oral testimonies of PW1 and DWs1 to 5 and Exts.A1 to A3 and B1 to B13. After
evaluating the evidence on record, the trial court found that the defendants failed to
prove the execution of Ext.B1 Will and Ext.B12 settlement deed and accordingly, a
preliminary decree for partition in tune with the prayer in the suit was passed. Being
aggrieved by the above preliminary decree and judgment, the defendants preferred
this appeal.
5. Now the points that arise for consideration are the following :
(1) Whether the defendants have succeeded in proving the execution of
Ext.B1 Will and Exts.B12 settlement deed ?
(2) Whether the impugned judgment and decree of the trial court calls for
any interference, in the light of the grounds raised in the appeal ?
6. Heard Sri.S.V.Balakrishna Iyer the learned Senior counsel appearing for
the appellants as instructed by Sri.P.B.Subramanyan and Sri.K.R.Arun Krishnan, the
learned counsel for the respondents
7. The points- Admittedly plaintiffs 1 to 6 are the daughters and
defendants 2 to 4 are the sons of late Kunjunni and the 1 st defendant Thanka. It is also
admitted that the plaint schedule item No.1 consists of 35 cents and item No.2
2025:KER:50918
consists of 36 cents belonged to late Kunjunni who died on 29.11.1991 and Ext.A1 is
his title deed in that respect. While according to the plaintiffs Kunjunni died intestate
and as such, the plaint schedule properties are partible among the plaintiffs and
defendants, according to the defendants Kunjunni settled a portion of schedule
property from item No.2 in favour of the 3rd defendant as per Et.B12 settlement deed
dated 20.5.1982 and with regard to the remaining properties he had executed Ext.B1
Will dated 21.5.1982.
8. In order to prove the due execution of Ext.B1 Will and Ext.B12
settlement deed, the defendants examined DWs1 to 5. In Ext.B1 Will as well as in
Ext.B12 settlement deed the attestors are common namely, one Sreedhara Menon and
one Prabhakaran who is also a scribe who prepared both those documents. Though
Prabhakaran is the scribe who prepared those documents, he signed in those
documents as an attestor also. Ext.B12 is dated 20.5.1982 while Ext.B1 is dated
21.5.1982. However, both those documents were registered on the same day on
24.5.1982. Ext.B12 was registered at 2.45 pm, while Ext.B1 was registered at 2.50
pm. At the time of evidence, both those attestors were no more. In the above
circumstances, the above documents are to be proved as required under Section 69 of
the Evidence Act.
9. The 2nd defendant was examined as DW1. DW2 is the wife of the
attestor Prabhakaran. DW3 is the son of Samuel, one of the witnesses who identified
Kunjunni before the Sub Registrar. DW4 is the Secretary of a nearby temple wherein
2025:KER:50918
Kunjunni was working as treasurer till 1988. DW5 was the Sub Registrar of the Sub
Registry wherein Exts.B1 and B12 were registered. During the examination of DW2,
the wife of Prabhakaran, she admitted the signature of Prabhakaran in Ext.B1 will.
DW3, the son of Samuel, admitted the signature of Samuel in Ext.B1. Though in the
proof affidavit DW1 claimed that Exts.B1 and B12 were executed by his father
Kunjunni, in the proof affidavit it was not specifically stated that the signature in
Exts.B1 and B12 were that of his father Kunjunni. Most interestingly, the original of
Ext.B12 was not produced before the Court at the time of evidence. According to the
defendants, immediately after the execution of Ext.B12, in favour of a 3 rd defendant,
he availed a loan for constructing a residential building in the said property and he
had deposited the original deed before the bank. What was produced and marked as
Ext.B12 was its certified copy.
10. Settlement deed as well as Will are documents required by law to be
attested. The proof of execution of documents required by law to be attested is dealt
with in Section 68 of the Evidence Act, which is extracted below for reference:
68. Proof of execution of document required by law to be attested.
If a document is required by law to be attested, it shall not be used as evidence
until one attesting witness at least has been called for the purpose of proving its
execution, if there be an attesting witness alive, and subject to the process of the
Court and capable of giving evidence:
[Provided that it shall not be necessary to call an attesting witness in proof
of the execution of any document, not being a Will, which has been registered in
accordance with the provisions of the Indian Registration Act, 1908 (XVI of 1908),
2025:KER:50918
unless its execution by the person by whom it purports to have been executed is
specifically denied.]
11. Therefore both Exts.B1 and B12 are to be proved as required under
Section 68 of the Evidence Act. Since in the instant case at the time of evidence both
the attestors were no more, those documents are to be proved as required under
Section 69 of the Evidence Act, which reads as follows:
69. Proof where no attesting witness found.
If no such attesting witness can be found, or if the document purports to have been
executed in the United Kingdom, it must be proved that the attestation of one
attesting witness at least is in his handwriting, and that the signature of the person
executing the document is in the handwriting of that person.
12. Section 69 has two limbs. The 1st limb is regarding proof of the
handwriting of at least one attesting witness and the 2nd limb is proving the
handwriting of the person who executed the documents. In the instant case, through
DW2, the signature of one of the attestors namely Prabhakaran in Ext.B1 was proved.
However, none of the witnesses were called upon to prove the signature of Kunjunni
in Exts.B1 and B12. According to the learned Senior counsel, it was due to an
inadvertent omission that the 2nd limb of Section 69 was omitted to be proved.
Therefore, he prayed for remanding the matter to the trial court and to give one more
opportunity to the defendants to prove the same and according to him, if not, the
defendants will be put to irreparable injury, hardships and loss.
13. On merits also, he has invited my attention to several circumstances to
show that Exts.B1 and B12 were executed by Kunjunni voluntarily and in sound
2025:KER:50918
disposing state of mind. The contention taken by the plaintiffs is that Exts.B1 and B12
were not executed by Kunjunni and even if it is found that the signature therein is that
of Kunjunni, it was happened to be executed under vitiating circumstances like fraud,
misrepresentation and undue influence. As I have already noted above, as per Ext.B12
settlement deed on 20.5.1982, Kunjunni settled 14 cents of property from plaint
schedule item No.2 in favour of the 3rd defendant, his 2nd son. As per Ext.B1 Will, 18
cents of property from item No.2 was set apart to his first son namely, the 2 nd
defendant and the remaining 4 cents in item No.2 was also set apart to the 3 rd
defendant to make the share of defendants 2 and 3 equally, namely 18 cents each. The
plaint schedule item No.1 consisting of 35 cents and the residential building therein
was set apart for the younger son namely, the 4 th defendant, reserving life interest to
the 1st defendant.
14. In Ext.B1 Will there is specific mention about execution of Ext.B12
settlement deed. At the time of execution of Ext.B1, the marriage of plaintiffs 1 to 4
alone was solemnized and they were living along with their husbands. In Ext.B1 it
was specifically stated that in case the marriage of plaintiffs 5 and 6 could not be
conducted during his life time, defendants 2 and 3 should pay a sum of Rs.25,000/-
each to them. Ext.B1 further states that after the death of the1st defendant, the 4 th
defendant has to pay a sum of Rs.3000/- each to plaintiffs 1 to 6. At the time of
evidence, it is revealed that the marriage of plaintiffs 5 and 6 were also solemnized
during the life time of Kunjunni. During the evidence of DW1, she admitted that the
2025:KER:50918
3rd defendant constructed the residential building in the property covered by Ext.B12
settlement deed during the life time of Kunjunni, with the permission of Kunjunni.
15. In the amended plaint, the plaintiffs have taken a contention that since
1976, Kunjunni was suffering from various ailments including alzheimers and hence,
he was not in a sound disposing state of mind so as to execute Exts.B1 and B12.
However, from the evidence of DW4, the Secretary of a nearby Temple, it is revealed
that Kunjunni was working as Treasurer of the Temple till 1988. Further, from the
evidence of DW4 it is revealed that some valuables belonging to the Temple was kept
in the custody of Kunjunni in his residence and that they were received back only in
1993 as per Ext.B11 document. Further, the defendants produced Exs.B2 and B3
documents executed by Kunjunni in the year 1985 and 1986 which would go to show
that even after the execution of Exts.B1 and B12 Kunjunni had executed registered
documents in favour of strangers. The plaintiffs have not disputed the execution of
Exts.B2 and B3 documents. Therefore, the contention of the plaintiffs that at the time
of execution of Exts.B1 and B12, Kunjunni was not in a sound disposing state of
mind cannot be accepted as true. Though they have taken a further contention that
those documents were executed under fraud, coercion and misrepresentation they
have not adduced any evidence to prove those contentions, in spite of the fact that it is
the burden of the party who alleges vitiating circumstances to prove those grounds. It
was in the above context that the trial court found that the plaintiffs could not prove
the allegation that Kunjunni was not in sound disposing state of mind during the
2025:KER:50918
relevant period. Similarly the plaintiff also failed to prove any vitiating circumstances
in the execution of Exts.B1 and B12. Even then, the trial court decreed the suit for the
sole ground that the defendants failed to prove the 2 nd limb of Section 69 of the
Evidence Act.
16. During the pendency of the appeal, the appellant filed I.A.1/2024 and
produced the original of Exts.B12 as Annexure A and two other documents
Nos.2028/1965 and 618/1972 of SRO Thrissur as annexure B and C containing the
signature of Kunjunni and prayed for comparing the admitted signature of Kunjunni
in those documents with that in Exts.B1 and B12. Of course, the signature of
Kunjunni in Ext.B1 and B12 are prima facie identical to the signature in the new
documents produced as Annexures B and C.. In this context it is also to be noted that
though Kunjunni died in 1991, the plaintiffs filed the suit only in 2011, 20 years after
the death of Kunjunni. In the meantime, the defendants constructed residential
building in the scheduled property and are enjoying the same as their own, in the light
of Exts.B1 and B12.
17. The learned counsel for the plaintiffs relying upon Order XLI Rule 27
CPC would argue that, the new documents produced along with I.A.1/2024 cannot be
received as the scope of Order XLI Rule 27 is very limited. Order XLI Rule 27 CPC
which deals with additional evidence in appeal reads as follows :
Production of additional evidence in Appellate Court
(1) The parties to an appeal shall not be entitled to produce additional evidence,
whether oral or documentary, in the Appellate Court. But if -
2025:KER:50918
(a) the Court from whose decree the appeal is preferred has refused to admit
evidence which ought to have been admitted, or
(aa) the party seeking to produce additional evidence, establishes that
notwithstanding the exercise of due diligence, such evidence was not within his
knowledge or could not, after the exercise of due diligence, be produced by him at
the time when the decree appealed against was passed, or
(b) the Appellate Court requires any document to be produced or any witness to be
examined to enable it to pronounce judgment, or for any other substantial cause,
the Appellate Court may allow such evidence or document to be produced, or
witness to be examined.
(2) Whenever additional evidence is allowed to be produced by an Appellate
Court, the Court shall record the reason for its admission. "
18. The scope of Order XLI Rule 27 CPC was discussed by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the decision in Sanjay Kumar Singh v. State of Jharkhand,
(2022) 7 SCC 247. In paragraph 4 and 5 the Apex Court held that :
"4. It is true that 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 CPCenables the appellate court to
take additional evidence in exceptional circumstances. It may also be true that the
appellate court may permit additional evidence if the conditions laid down in this
Rule are found to exist and the parties are not entitled, as of right, to the admission
of such evidence. However, at the same time, 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. Even, one of the circumstances in which the
production of additional evidence under Order 41 Rules 27 CPC by the appellate
court is to be considered is, whether or not the appellate court requires the
additional evidence so as to enable it to pronouncement judgment or for any other
substantial cause of like nature. As observed and held by this Court in the case of
2025:KER:50918
A. Andisamy Chettiar v. A. Subburaj Chettiar, reported in (2015) 17 SCC 713, the
admissibility of additional evidence does not depend upon the relevancy to the
issue on hand, or on the fact, whether the applicant had an opportunity for
adducing such evidence at an earlier stage or not, but it depends upon whether or
not the appellate court requires the evidence sought to be adduced to enable it to
pronounce judgment or for any other substantial cause. It is further observed that
the true test, therefore is, whether the appellate court is able to pronounce
judgment on the materials before it without taking into consideration the
additional evidence sought to be adduced.
5. Applying the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid decision to the facts of
the case on hand, we are of the opinion that while considering the application for
additional evidence, the High Court has not at all adverted to the aforesaid
relevant consideration, i.e., whether the additional evidence sought to be adduced
would have a direct bearing on pronouncing the judgment or for any other
substantial cause....."
19. Relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Sirajudheen v. Zeenath, 2023 (2) KHC 577, the learned counsel for the plaintiffs
would argue that merely for the purpose of filling up the lacuna in the plaintiffs' case,
the matter cannot be remanded.
20. In the decision in Leela Devi K.R. (Dr.) v. K.R.Rajaram, 2025 (4)
KHC 287, a Division Bench of this Court after evaluating the various decisions,
assessed the scope of Section 69 of the Evidence Act and held as under :
"20. Therefore, a witness cited to prove a Will under Section 69 of the Evidence
Act need not necessarily be a person who had seen the executant and attesting
witnesses affixing their signatures; it is sufficient to prove that the signatures were
in the handwriting of the respective persons. This is the essential distinction
between the mode of proof under Section 68 and Section 69 of the Indian Evidence
2025:KER:50918
Act. This court has taken a similar view in C.G. Raveendran v. C.G. Gopi (AIR
2015 Ker 250).
21. In a case where the witness cited to prove the Will under Section 69 of the
Evidence Act establishes that he had witnessed the testator and the witnesses
signing the Will, it is sufficient proof that the attestation by the attesting witnesses
is in their handwriting and that the signature of the testator is in that person's
handwriting. It constitutes sufficient compliance with Section 69. When the witness
deposes that he saw the executant and the attesting witnesses sign the document in
question, it amounts to the proof required under Section 69. In the above context, it
is also relevant to note the opinion of the Division Bench of the Patna High Court
in Haradhan Mahatha and Others v. Dukhu Mahatha (AIR 1993 Pat 129), where
it is held as follows:
"Identification of signature is not necessary to prove a document, as
required under Section 69 of the Act. Identification of signature is
necessary only if document is not signed in presence of the witness. In a
case, where document has been executed in presence of a witness, it is not
necessary for him to say that he identifies the signature. It is sufficient for
the witness, if he says that the document in question produced in Court, to
which his attention was drawn, was executed and attested in his presence.
Therefore, I am clearly of the view that the requirement of Section 69 of
the Act has been complied with and the Will in question has been rightly
admitted into evidence by trial Court."
22. While Section 68 of the Evidence Act deals with the mode of proof of execution
of documents required by law to be attested, Section 69 provides an alternative
procedure for proving such a document when the mode provided in Section 68
cannot be resorted to in certain circumstances. Nevertheless, Section 69can be
invoked only on satisfaction of the condition mentioned therein. Once the document
is proved in the manner provided in Section 69, it amounts to the proof of due
execution and attestation of that document.
21. In the decision in C.G.Raveendran & Ors. v. C.G.Gopi & Ors., AIR
2015 Ker. 250, another Division Bench of this Court held in pararagh 19 as follows :
2025:KER:50918
"It is settled that mode of proving a Will does not ordinarily differ from that of
proving any other document except as to the special requirement of attestation
prescribed by Section 63 of Indian Succession Act. Section 69 imposes a twin
fold duty on the propounder. It provides that if no such attesting witness can be
found, it must be proved that attestation of one attesting witness at least is in
his handwriting and also that the signature of the person executing the
document is in the handwriting of that person. Hence, to rely on a Will
propounded in a case covered by Section 69 the propounder should prove i)
that the attestation is in the handwriting of the attesting witness and ii) that the
document was signed by the executant. Both the limbs will have to be
cumulatively proved by the propounder. Evidently, the section demands proof of
execution in addition to attestation and does not permit execution to be inferred
from proof of attestation. However, Section. 69 presumes that once the
handwriting of attesting witness is proved he has witnessed the execution of the
document. The twin requirement of proving the signature and handwriting has
to be in accordance with Section 67 of the Indian Evidence Act.
22. It is true that for the purpose of filling up lacuna in the plaintiffs' case,
remand cannot be ordered. Order 41 Rule 27(1)(b) states that if the Appellate Court
requires any document to be produced or any witness to be examined to enable it to
pronounce judgment, or for any other substantial cause, the Appellate Court may
allow such evidence or document to be produced, or witness to be examined.
23. In the instant case, as I have already noted above, for one reason or
another, the defendants failed to prove the 2nd limb of Section 69 of the Evidence Act.
Though DW1 being the son of Kunjunni was a competent witness to prove the
signature of Kunjunni in Ext.B1 and B12, it appears that evidence required to prove
the 2nd limb of Section 69 of the Evidence Act relating to Ext.B1 and B12 was not
stated in his proof affidavit and no attempt was seen made to bring such evidence
2025:KER:50918
during his re-examination also. In spite of examining five witnesses on the side of the
defendants, no such evidence was brought out from their evidence also, presumably
because of the lack of experience or diligence on the part of the lawyer who
conducted the case before the trial court. If in such a situation the new documents
produced are not accepted in evidence and the defendants are not permitted to adduce
further evidence to prove the 2nd limb of section 69 of the Evidence Act in respect of
Exts.B1 and B12, serious prejudice will be caused to the defendants and the same will
also lead to failure of justice. For a proper and effective adjudication of the actual
dispute between the parties also, such an opportunity is to be given. At the same time,
the inconvenience caused to the plaintiffs due to such delay also is to be addressed.
24. Therefore, considering the entire facts, I hold that one more opportunity
can be given to the defendants to adduce evidence to prove the 2nd limb of Section 69
of the Evidence Act, in respect of Ext.B1 and B12 documents. For that purpose, the
matter requires to be remanded to the trial court for fresh disposal. If that be so,
I.A.1/2024 filed by the defendants under Order XLI Rule 27 also is to be allowed and
the documents produced along with the I.A. are to be received in evidence. At the
same time, the plaintiffs who are prosecuting this case since 2011 requires reasonable
compensation by way of costs. Since altogether six plaintiffs are there, I hold that a
cost of Rs.60,000/- at the rate of Rs.10,000/- to each plaintiff will be a reasonable cost
in this case. The points answered accordingly.
25. In the result, this appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and decree
2025:KER:50918
of the trial court is set aside. I.A.1/2024 filed by the defendants under Order XLI Rule
27 is allowed and the documents produced along with the I.A. are marked as
Exts.B14 to B16. The matter is remanded to the trial court for fresh disposal after
affording opportunity to both sides to adduce further evidence, if any, on condition
that the appellants shall pay a cost of Rs.10,000/- each to the plaintiffs 1 to 6 (total
Rs.60,000/-) within a period of 15 days from today.
For payment of costs and report, call on 28.7.2025.
All pending interlocutory applications in the appeal will stand closed.
Sd/-
C.Pratheep Kumar, Judge
Mrcs/4.7.
