//
archives

Arjan Singh

This tag is associated with 2 posts

Civil Procedure Code, 1908, O. XLI, r. 27–Additional evidence –Improper admission–Finding based on such evi- dence–Whether conclusive–Interference–Punjab Custom Act (H of 1920), s. 7-Suit to contest alienation of non-ances- tral property–Maintainability. = The discretion to receive and admit additional evidence in appeal is not an arbitrary one but is a judicial one circumscribed by the limitations specified in O. XLI, r. 27, of the Civil Procedure Code, and if additional evidence was allowed to be adduced contrary to the principles governing the reception of such evidence, it would be a case of im- proper exercise of discretion, and the additional evidence so brought on the record will have to be ignored and the case decided as if it was non-existent. 259 The legitimate occasion for admitting additional evi- dence in appeal is when on examining the evidence as it stands some inherent lacuna or defect becomes apparent, not where a discovery is made outside the court, of fresh evi- dence, and an application is made to import it. The true test 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.Kessowji Issur v.G. 1. P. Railway (34 I.A. 115) and Parsotim v. Lal Mohan (58 I.A. 254) referred to. Though ordinarily a finding of fact, however erroneous, cannot be challenged in second appeal, a finding which is arrived at on the basis of additional evidence which ought not to have been admitted and without any consideration of the intrinsic and palpable defects in the nature of such evidence cannot be accepted as a finding which is conclusive on appeal. Under s. 7 of the Punjab Act II of 1920 no one can contest an alienation of non-ancestral immoveable property on the ground that such alienation is contrary to custom.

PETITIONER: ARJAN SINGH alias PURAN Vs. RESPONDENT: KARTAR SINGH AND OTHERS. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 02/03/1951 BENCH: AIYAR, N. CHANDRASEKHARA BENCH: AIYAR, N. CHANDRASEKHARA FAZAL ALI, SAIYID MUKHERJEA, B.K. CITATION: 1951 AIR 193 1951 SCR 258 CITATOR INFO : RF 1963 SC1526 (9) F 1974 SC2069 (5) RF 1976 SC1053 (10) ACT: Civil Procedure Code, 1908, … Continue reading

Partition of ancestral property and business-One of the parties a minor at the time of partition-Partition-If could be re-opened when minor became a major.

PETITIONER: SUKHRANI (DEAD) BY L.RS. & ORS. Vs. RESPONDENT: HARI SHANKER & OTHERS DATE OF JUDGMENT12/04/1979 BENCH: REDDY, O. CHINNAPPA (J) BENCH: REDDY, O. CHINNAPPA (J) SHINGAL, P.N. CITATION: 1979 AIR 1436 1979 SCR (3) 671 1979 SCC (4) 463 CITATOR INFO : D 1988 SC1531 (185) ACT: Partition of ancestral property and business-One of … Continue reading

Blog Stats

  • 2,887,199 hits

ADVOCATE MMMOHAN

archieves

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 1,905 other followers
Follow advocatemmmohan on WordPress.com