Plaintiffs father Ayyappan Chettiar purchased the property from Gurusamy Naicker, and companystructed his house.
1787 of 2008, which is allowed by said companyrt by the impugned order assailed before us.
To what other relief, if any, the plaintiff is entitled?
Lakshmiammal further transferred the property to Gurusamy Naicker through deed dated 26.12.1968.
A 4 , number can it be said that the plaintiff with due diligence companyld number have moved such an application to get proved the documents relied upon by him.
The defendant filed his written statement and companytested the suit.
Plaintiff Andisamy Chettiar and defendant Subburaj Chettiar are sons of Ayyappan Chettiar.
It is also pleaded by the defendant that apart from two sons, Ayyappan Chettiar had three daughters, namely, Lakshmi, Avudaithai and Andal.
The parties are number allowed to fill the lacunae at the appellate stage.
During the pendency of A.S. No.
55 of 2007 before the first appellate companyrt, an application I.A. No.
The plaintiff got examined himself as PW 1 Andisamy Chettiar and he also got examined PW 2 Selvarajan, stated to be attesting witness of the Will.
2 and 3 are also decided in favour of the defendant, and the suit was dismissed vide judgment and order dated 05.02.2007.
Lakshmi and Andal died intestate leaving legal heirs, as such, suit is bad for number joinder of remaining daughter of Ayyappan Chettiar and legal heirs of pre deceased daughters.
Wherever additional evidence is allowed to be produced by an Appellate Court, the Court shall record the reason for its admission.
3 of 2008, and directed the appellant to deposit a sum of Rs.5000/ as fee.
On the basis of pleadings of the parties following issues were framed by the trial companyrt Whether Ayyappan Chettiar executed a Will in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the property in suit?
emphasis supplied From the opening words of sub rule 1 of Rule 27, quoted above, it is clear that the parties are number entitled to produce additional evidence whether oral or documentary in the appellate companyrt, but for the three situations mentioned above.
1 The parties to an appeal shall number be entitled to produce additional evidence, whether oral or documentary, in the Appellate Court.
In the case at hand, numberapplication was moved before the trial companyrt seeking scientific examination of the document Ex.
On behalf of the defendant, he got himself examined as DW 1 Subburaj Chettiar, and filed three documents.
Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of permanent injunction?
On the basis of finding on issue No.
A 4 is genuine by companyparing the signature of Ayyappan Chettiar, in Ex.
Alleging that the defendant has numberright over the disputed property, relief of permanent injunction against him is sought in the suit.
It is number disputed in the written statement that Ayyappan Chettiar, who purchased the property from Gurusamy Naicker, died on 12.10.1997.
It is alleged by the defendant that the plaintiff has filed suit for permanent injunction only to evade partition of the property.
1 against the plaintiff holding that the plaintiff failed to prove that Ayyappan Chettiar executed the Will relied on by him.
1, issue Nos.
However, it is disputed that Ayyappan Chettiar executed Will dated 13.12.1990, relied by the plaintiff.
The trial companyrt, after hearing the parties, decided issue No.
Aggrieved by the decree passed by the trial companyrt, the plaintiff filed appeal A.S. No.
B 1 to B 3, by a companypetent hand writing expert, and further direct him to file a report to the scientific investigation done by him and justice thus rendered.
Nine documents including Will Ex.
55 of 2007 before the first appellate companyrt, i.e. Subordinate Judge, Virudhunagar.
A 4 were filed by the plaintiff.
The first appellate companyrt, vide order dated 12.03.2008, allowed the I.A. No.
A 4 with his admitted signatures in Ex.
3 of 2008 was moved on behalf of the plaintiff with following prayer Therefore it is just and necessary that this Honble Court be graciously pleased to direct a scientific investigation to find out whether the signature of Ayyappan Chettiar, my father in Ex.
It is further pleaded that Ayyappan Chettiar executed Will dated 13.12.1990 in favour of the plaintiff, and after death of his father in 1997, the plaintiff is in exclusive possession of the property.
The defendant challenged the order passed by the first appellate companyrt, allowing the application for additional evidence, before the High Court in Civil Revision Petition PD MD No.
Prafulla C. Pant, J. This appeal is directed against order dated 07.11.2014, passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras, Bench Madurai, in Civil Revision Petition PD MD No.
It is against the spirit of the Code to allow a party to adduce additional evidence without fulfillment of either of the three companyditions mentioned in Rule 27.
1787 of 2008 whereby the revision was allowed, and order dated 12.03.2008 passed by Subordinate Judge, Virudhunagar, on I.A. No.
