Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

7. Now the aggrieved defendants are before this Court assailing the judgment of the Lower Appellate Court. The appellants have also filed an application I.A.1/2012 under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC seeking permission to produce additional documentary evidence i.e., the certified copy of the statement given by the appellants before the Tahsildar, Madhugiri, in RRT/DIS/3/91-92. In the supporting affidavit the appellant Krishnappa has averred to the effect that before the Trial Court the defendants had produced the order copy passed by Tahsildar, Madhugiri of the RRT proceedings which was initiated for change of katha of the land in question and the same is marked as Ex.D.37. The respondent did not participate effectively in the said proceedings. These proceedings were subsequent to the filing of the Civil Suit. The Lower Appellate Court considered the said documents to up-

hold the relationship of the plaintiff with the deceased Thimmarayappa. The Trial Court had held that the statement given has not been produced. The said statement was mis-placed and this document being a part of the records of RRT/DIS/3/91-92/Part of Ex.D.37 it is not a surprise to the respondents.

8. The appeal is contested by the 1st respondent only i.e., T. Anantha Kumar. The 2nd respondent T. Gavi Thimmaiah though prosecuted the case along with his brother / first respondent T. Anantha Kumar as plaintiff before the trial Court and also as appellant before the First Appellate Court now has remained ex-parte before this court. The 1st respondent has filed his objection statement to the application I.A.1/2012 contending that though the appellant was very much aware of the statement given by himself, has not produced the document now intended to be produced at the earliest. The explanation offered by him for late production of the document at this stage is unacceptable.

- 10 -

adjudicate. According to him the conclusion reached by the Lower Appellate Court that deceased Thimmarayappa is the father of the plaintiffs is without the support of legal evidence. Solely on the ground that first respondent was shown as son of Thimmarayappa in the RRT proceedings, the lower Appellate Court has presumed that the defendants have admitted the case of the plaintiff by their conduct. But no where the defendants had admitted the said relationship. The statement given by the defendants before the Tahsildar will speak by itself that all the while they have disputed the relationship. In the suit, without there being any pleadings or evidence the Lower Appellate Court has come to the conclusion that the plaintiffs are illegitimate children of Thimmarayappa, which was not the case of either of the parties. Non-examination of the mother of the plaintiff or any of the close relative in accordance with the requirement of Section 50 of the Evidence Act, is fatal to the case of the plaintiffs. On the above

17. That apart the order sheet of the Lower Appellate Court evinces that after receiving the Addl. Evidence without giving opportunity to the respondents / defendants the case was heard on merits and disposed off, which according to the appellants herein was in violation of the principles of natural justice resulting in miscarriage of justice. On that count also the procedure adopted by the Lower Appellate Court was vitiated.

- 23 -

18. There is another ground to interfere with the impugned judgment. The defendants themselves had filed certified copy of the order passed by the Tahsildar in RRT proceedings in which the plaintiffs were arrayed as the sons of Thimmarayappa in the cause-title. This document according to plaintiffs fortifies their case. But it did not appeal to the Trial Court as a proof of admission by the defendants about their relationship with deceased Thimmarayappa. However, the lower Appellate Court appreciating the very same document held that the defendants admitted the relationship of the plaintiff with the deceased Thimmarayappa. Now the appellants have filed I.A.I/2012 before this Court seeking permission to produce the certified copy of the statement given by the 1st appellant before the Tahsildar in the said RRT proceedings. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants that the RRT proceedings was initiated since the plaintiffs obstructed for the mutation of the suit schedule property in their