Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.21 seconds)
Documents citing K.M. Srinivasam Pillai vs Y.P.R.L. Alagappa Chettiar And Anr. on 12 November, 1937

Sathrevada Valliamma vs S. Sabhapathi And Ors. on 15 March, 2000

In support of his contention he relied upon a decision of Madras High Court in K.M. Srinivasam Pillai v. Y.P.R.L. Alagappa Chettiar, AIR 1938 Madras 372. where it is stated that when additional evidence has to be inducted at the stage of appeal, it should be considered and reasons have to be assigned. It is also contended that if the documents are received in evidence, it is obligatory on the part of the Court to consider the same and render a proper finding. Admittedly, in the judgment of the lower Court no reference whatsoever is made regarding Exs. A-15 and A-16 and according to the Counsel for the appellant it is a serious irregularity that goes to the root of the matter. I am unable to accept this contention of the learned Counsel. No doubt, under Order 41 Rule 29 of C.P.C. it is obligatory on the part of the Court to consider the documents while rendering the judgment. But the crucial question that falls for consideration is whether those documents are so vital as to tilt the balance in favour of the appellant. The important questions that were under consideration before the Court below were whether the suit schedule properties were self-acquired properties of Muneppa Reddy and whether the Will was valid. These two issues cannot be said to be influenced by induction of Exs. A-15 and A-16 since they are only communications alleged to have been made between the parties, which could not and would not establish the facts in issue. Of Course, lower Court ought to have considered the same and given a finding but it failed to do so since they were found not to be so vital to decide the issue between the parties. This is a curable irregularity that cannot go to the extent of upsetting the judgment of the appellate Court. Thus, I am convinced that the contention raised by the learned Counsel on this aspect cannot be accepted. Coming to the other aspect, the Courts below have concurrently found that the plaintiff, on whom the burden lies to establish that the suit schedule properties were self-acquired properties of Muneppa Reddy, failed to establish the same and therefore held the issue against the plaintiff. The issue being a pure question of fact, which the appellate Court also affirmed, cannot now be entertained in the second appeal. Coming to Ex. B-6, the finding recorded on this aspect is based upon the evidence on record and it is a pure question of fact, which cannot be interfered with in a second appeal Under Section 100 C.P.C. Moreover, in the instant case, except the contention that there was violation of Order 41 Rules 28 and 29 of C.P.C. no other substantial question of law would involve in this case as the issues decided by the lower Court are pure questions of fact based on evidence on record.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 3 - Cited by 2 - Full Document
1