advocatemmmohan

My photo

ADVOCATEMMMOHAN -  Practicing both IN CIVIL, CRIMINAL AND FAMILY LAWS,Etc.,

WELCOME TO LEGAL WORLD

WELCOME TO MY LEGAL WORLD - FOR KNOWLEDGE IN LAW & FOR LEGAL OPINIONS - SHARE THIS

Thursday, December 22, 2016

in terms of Order XLI Rule 31 CPC, the High Court has neither framed the points for determination nor discussed the evidence adduced by the defendants.; Having impleaded the appellants as parties in the first appeal, in terms of Order XLI Rule 27, the High Court ought to have afforded an opportunity to the appellants to adduce oral and documentary evidence and make their submissions.= First Appeal No. 230 of 2007 dated 30.07.2007 is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the High Court for consideration of the matter afresh. First respondent-Plaintiff, being the appellant before the High Court, is directed to take steps for impleading the legal representatives of the deceased second respondent-Defendant. The High Court shall afford sufficient opportunity to both the parties to adduce additional evidence, both oral and documentary and further afford sufficient opportunity of hearing to both the parties. Since the suit is of the year 1994, we request the High Court to dispose the appeal expeditiously in accordance with law. We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter.

                                                                  REPORTABLE

                        IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

                        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION



                        CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4426 OF 2011



LALITESHWAR PRASAD SINGH & ORS.                   APPELLANTS



                                   Versus

S.P. SRIVASTAVA (D) THR. LRS.                           RESPONDENT



                               J U D G M E N T



R. BANUMATHI, J.



This appeal arises out of the judgment of  High  Court  of  Patna  in  First
Appeal No. 230 of 2007 dated 30.07.2007 reversing the judgment of the  trial
court  and  thereby  decreeing   first   respondent-Plaintiff’s   suit   for
declaration of title.

2. Genealogy of the first respondent-Plaintiff  and  Tarawati  Devi  are  as
under:-



                               Mahabir Prasad





   Tej Pratap Narayan
Jagadambi Prasad




                         Rudra       Mahendra   Kanta                 Kanji
                                                                    Girish
Chandra Prasad (1960)
Narayan     Prasad      Prasad               Prasad
                                         Tarawati Devi (died in 1985)
                                died issueless    died issueless

            Shailendra Prasad
Suresh Chandra Prasad (1942)
                  Plaintiff

Deoki Devi                         Sita Devi
                                                   Umashanker Prasad (1970)
Died                                 died issueless
                                                            (died
unmarried)













The genealogy of parental side of Tarawati Devi is as under:-



                            Dhanukdhari Sahay





            Tarawati Devi         Laxmi Devi            Raxn Devi




                                         Baidya Nath (Defendant)



3. The first respondent-Plaintiff Shailendra Prasad Srivastava filed a  suit
praying for declaration of his  title  with  respect  to  suit  property  in
Khasra No. 123, 124, 269, 274, 997 and  959  of  Khata  No.  31  of  village
Bairiya  and  village  Koloha  Pagambarpur  Schedule  I  and   Schedule   II
properties respectively against the second respondent-Defendant Baidya  Nath
Prasad Verma alleging that the suit property detailed in Schedule I  and  II
belonged to Girish Chandra Prasad. Case of the  plaintiff  is  that  in  the
Revisional Survey of Records, Tarawati Devi, the  widow  of  Girish  Chandra
Prasad got the property recorded in the  name  of  her  grandson  Umashanker
Prasad. The said Umashanker Prasad died  during  the  lifetime  of  Tarawati
Devi in the year 1965. The first respondent-Plaintiff further  alleged  that
he, being the only male member of the family, used  to  stay  with  Tarawati
Devi and did all the ceremonies after her death. Further case of  the  first
respondent-Plaintiff is that when he was working at Bhillai, he learnt  that
the second respondent-Defendant is  trying  to  obtain  revenue  receipt  in
collusion with Anchal Karmachari. The  first  respondent-Plaintiff  went  to
the office of the Circle  Office  Kanti  and  got  cancellation  of  revenue
receipt in the name of defendant.  The  second  respondent-Defendant  Baidya
Nath Prasad filed mutation appeal. When the first respondent-Plaintiff  came
to know that the second respondent-Defendant is trying to claim  title  over
the suit property through Tarawati Devi  alleging  that  the  suit  property
belonged to Tarawati Devi, the first respondent-Plaintiff being  the  agnate
of Tarawati Devi filed a suit for declaration of his title.

4.  Resisting  the  suit,  second  respondent-Defendant  filed   a   written
statement  refuting  all  claims  of  the  first  respondent-Plaintiff   and
contending that the  disputed  property  belonged  to  one  Mr.  Dhanukdhari
Sahay. The said Dhanukdhari Sahay had one son named Mr. Vasudev Prasad,  who
further had a son and  three  daughters,  namely,  Ms.  Tarawati  Devi,  Ms.
Lakshmi Devi and Ms. Ranjan Devi. Ms. Ranjan Devi died during  the  lifetime
of her father. Second respondent-Defendant further  pleaded  that  the  suit
property has been sold to various parties and the suit filed  by  the  first
respondent-Plaintiff against the second respondent-Defendant  is  liable  to
be dismissed. After  the  death  of  son  Vasudev  Prasad  and  others,  the
disputed property came to be vested in Ms. Tarawati Devi’s name. The  second
respondent-Defendant was the closest legal heir  of  Dhanukdhari  Sahay  and
after the death of Ms. Tarawati Devi in 1985, as per Section  15(2)  of  the
Hindu  Succession  Act,  the  property  devolved  upon  second   respondent-
Defendant by succession and  mutation  was  effected  in  his  name  and  he
started paying revenue in respect of the suit property which was mutated  in
his name.

5. On the above pleadings, nine issues  were  framed  in  the  trial  court.
Number of witnesses were examined on  the  side  of  the  first  respondent-
Plaintiff as well as  second  respondent-Defendant.  Upon  consideration  of
oral  and  documentary  evidence,  the  trial  court  held  that  the  first
respondent-Plaintiff has  not  produced  any  documents  to  show  that  the
property belonged to the family of Tej Pratap Narayan. The trial court  held
that after the death of her father Dhanukdhari Sahay, Tarawati  Devi  became
the sole legal heir of the disputed property and as per Section 15(1)(b)  of
Hindu Succession Act, if the deceased woman has acquired the  property  from
her parents, it will be inherited by the successors of the  parents  of  the
deceased. It was further held that there is no record to show that  Tarawati
Devi got the disputed property from her husband or father-in-law. The  trial
court dismissed the suit holding that  the  first  respondent-Plaintiff  has
not produced the  necessary  documents  to  prove  his  title  to  the  suit
property.

6. On appeal, the High Court reversed the findings of the  trial  court  and
held that as per  the  Revisional  Survey  Record  of  Right,  property  was
recorded in the name  of  Umashanker  Prasad,  grandson  of  Girish  Chandra
Prasad and on the death of Girish Chandra Prasad, his  widow  Tarawati  Devi
became the absolute owner of the property and on  her  death  in  1985,  the
property  devolved  on  her  agnate-the  first  respondent-Plaintiff.  After
referring to oral evidence and also the rent receipts produced by the  first
respondent-Plaintiff in his name and in the name of  Girish  Chandra  Prasad
(Ex.1-1/J  and  Ex.  1/K-1/M),  it  was  held  that  the  first  respondent-
Plaintiff’s case about his agnate relationship with  Girish  Chandra  Prasad
stood proved and thus the Plaintiff proved his title to the  suit  property.
On those reasonings, the High Court  reversed  the  findings  of  the  trial
court and allowed the first appeal and decreed the Plaintiff’s suit.

7. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that though the  suit  filed
by  the  first  respondent-Plaintiff  was  for  declaration  of  title,   no
documents of title pertaining to the suit property had been produced  before
the court and the documents produced were merely rent receipts and  mutation
record and on these documents, there could be no presumption  of  title  and
while so, the High Court was not right by treating  those  documents  as  if
they were documents of title and reversing the judgment of the trial  court.
It was submitted that in his cross-examination,  first  respondent-Plaintiff
(PW-3) admitted that Tarawati Devi  had  purchased  the  suit  property  two
acres and fifteen decimals of land and this  admission  made  by  the  first
respondent-Plaintiff  was  not  properly  appreciated  by  the  High  Court.
Further contention of the appellants  is  that  the  High  Court  failed  to
appreciate that in view of proviso to Section  34  of  the  Specific  Relief
Act, the suit for declaration of title without any consequential  relief  of
possession was not maintainable. Main contention of the appellants  is  that
while the High Court impleaded  the  appellants  as  parties  in  the  first
appeal, the High Court being  the  first  appellate  court,  ought  to  have
afforded an opportunity to  the  appellants  to  file  their  documents  and
submissions  and  the  judgment  of  the  High  Court  is  in  violation  of
principles of natural justice in not giving opportunity  to  the  appellants
who are bona fide purchasers for consideration.

8. Per contra, learned senior counsel  for  the  first  respondent-Plaintiff
submitted that the record of rights (Ex. 13 series) stood  in  the  name  of
Umashanker Prasad, the grandson of Girish Chandra Prasad and this record  of
right was corroborated by the rent  receipts  which  were  in  the  name  of
Girish Chandra Prasad as well as the first respondent-Plaintiff himself.  It
was further submitted that apart from the  documentary  evidence,  the  oral
evidence of PW-3, PW-4, PW-10, PW-13 and PW-14  established  that  the  suit
property belonged to Girish Chandra Prasad. It  was  contended  that  Girish
Chandra Prasad was the owner of the property and as per Section  15  of  the
Hindu Succession  Act,  first  respondent-Plaintiff,  being  the  agnate  of
Tarawati Devi, inherited the suit property and  upon  appreciation  of  oral
and documentary evidence, High Court rightly declared the first  respondent-
Plaintiff’s title by reversing the judgment of trial court. It  was  further
contended that in spite of opportunities afforded,  the  second  respondent-
Defendant did not produce the sale deeds executed by him in  favour  of  the
appellants which clearly  shows  that  the  appellants  are  not  bona  fide
purchasers for value and the High Court rightly  held  that  the  appellants
cannot have a better title than that of the second respondent-Defendant.

9. The question falling for consideration is whether the  property  belonged
to Girish Chandra  Prasad  and  after  his  death,  his  wife-Tarawati  Devi
succeeded to the property of her husband and after her death  devolves  upon
her  agnate  first  respondent-Plaintiff;  or   whether   it   belonged   to
Dhanukdhari  Sahay,  father  of  Tarawati  Devi  from  whom  Tarawati   Devi
inherited and as per Section 15(2) of the Hindu Succession Act  whether  the
second respondent-Defendant is entitled to succeed to the same.

10. The High Court  has  specifically  dealt  with  two  core  issues:-  one
relating to the genuineness of  the  genealogical  table  contained  in  the
plaint and the  other  relates  to  ascertainment  of  title  of  the  first
respondent-Plaintiff over the suit  scheduled  property  by  the  documents-
record of rights and rent receipts filed by the first  respondent-Plaintiff.
Contention of the appellants is that the High Court, while arriving  at  the
conclusion,  did  not  properly  analyse  the  materials   on   record,   in
particular,  the  evidence  adduced  by  the  second   respondent-Defendant.
Further contention of the appellants is that the High Court being the  first
appellate court, being the final court of facts, was bound  to  analyse  the
evidence and  record  its  reasonings,  especially  while  it  reversed  the
findings of the trial court.

11. As per Order XLI Rule 31 CPC, the judgment of the first appellate  court
must explicitly set out the points for  determination,  record  its  reasons
thereon and to give its reasonings based on evidence. Order XLI Rule 31  CPC
reads as under:

“Order XLI Rule  31:  Contents,  date  and  signature  of  judgment.  –  The
judgment of the Appellate Court shall be in writing and shall state –

the points for determination;

the decision thereon;

the reasons for the decision; and

where the decree appealed from is reversed or varied, the  relief  to  which
the appellant is entitled;

and shall at the time that it is propounded  be  signed  and  dated  by  the
Judge or by the Judges concurring therein.”



It is well settled that the first appellate court  shall  state  the  points
for determination, the  decision  thereon  and  the  reasons  for  decision.
However,  it  is  equally  well  settled  that  mere   omission   to   frame
point/points for determination does not vitiate the judgment  of  the  first
appellate court provided that the first appellate court records its  reasons
based on evidence adduced by both the parties.

12. An appellate court is the final court of  facts.  The  judgment  of  the
appellate court must therefore  reflect  court’s  application  of  mind  and
record its findings supported by reasons. The law  relating  to  powers  and
duties of  the  first  appellate  court  is  well  fortified  by  the  legal
provisions and judicial pronouncements. Considering the nature and scope  of
duty of first appellate court, in Vinod Kumar  v.  Gangadhar  (2015)  1  SCC
391, it was held as under:-

“12. In Santosh Hazari v. Purushottam Tiwari (2001) 3 SCC  179,  this  Court
held as under: (SCC pp. 188-89, para 15)

“15. … The appellate  court  has  jurisdiction  to  reverse  or  affirm  the
findings of the trial court.  First  appeal  is  a  valuable  right  of  the
parties and unless restricted by law, the whole case  is  therein  open  for
rehearing both on questions of fact and law. The judgment of  the  appellate
court must, therefore, reflect its conscious application of mind and  record
findings supported by reasons, on all the  issues  arising  along  with  the
contentions put forth, and pressed  by  the  parties  for  decision  of  the
appellate court. … while reversing a finding of  fact  the  appellate  court
must come into close quarters with  the  reasoning  assigned  by  the  trial
court and then assign its own reasons for arriving at a  different  finding.
This would satisfy the  court  hearing  a  further  appeal  that  the  first
appellate court had discharged the duty expected of it.”

The above view has been followed by a three-Judge  Bench  decision  of  this
Court in Madhukar v. Sangram (2001) 4 SCC 756,  wherein  it  was  reiterated
that sitting as a court of first appeal, it is the duty of  the  High  Court
to deal with all the issues and the  evidence  led  by  the  parties  before
recording its findings.



13. In H.K.N. Swami v. Irshad Basith (2005) 10 SCC 243,  this  Court  stated
as under: (SCC p. 244, para 3)

“3. The first appeal has to be decided on facts as well as on  law.  In  the
first appeal parties have the right to be heard both on questions of law  as
also on facts and the first appellate court is required  to  address  itself
to all issues and decide the case  by  giving  reasons.  Unfortunately,  the
High Court, in the present case has  not  recorded  any  finding  either  on
facts or on law. Sitting as the first appellate court it  was  the  duty  of
the High Court to deal with all the issues  and  the  evidence  led  by  the
parties before recording the finding regarding title.”

14. Again in Jagannath v. Arulappa (2005) 12 SCC 303, while considering  the
scope of Section 96 of  the  Code  of  Civil  Procedure,  1908,  this  Court
observed as follows: (SCC p. 303, para 2)

15. Again in B.V. Nagesh v. H.V. Sreenivasa Murthy (2010) 13 SCC  530,  this
Court taking note of all the earlier judgments of this Court reiterated  the
aforementioned principle with these words: (SCC pp. 530-31, paras 3-5)

“3. How the regular first appeal is to  be  disposed  of  by  the  appellate
court/High Court has been considered by this  Court  in  various  decisions.
Order 41 CPC deals with appeals from original  decrees.  Among  the  various
rules, Rule 31 mandates that the  judgment  of  the  appellate  court  shall
state:

(a) the points for determination;

(b) the decision thereon;

(c) the reasons for the decision; and

(d) where the decree appealed from is reversed  or  varied,  the  relief  to
which the appellant is entitled.

4. The appellate court has jurisdiction to reverse or  affirm  the  findings
of the trial court. The first appeal is a valuable right of the parties  and
unless restricted by law, the whole case is therein open for rehearing  both
on questions of fact and law. The judgment  of  the  appellate  court  must,
therefore, reflect its conscious application of  mind  and  record  findings
supported by reasons, on all the issues arising along with  the  contentions
put forth, and pressed by the parties for decision of the  appellate  court.
Sitting as a court of first appeal, it was the duty of  the  High  Court  to
deal with all the  issues  and  the  evidence  led  by  the  parties  before
recording its findings. The  first  appeal  is  a  valuable  right  and  the
parties have a right to be heard both on questions of law and on  facts  and
the judgment in the first appeal must address itself to all  the  issues  of
law and fact and decide it by giving reasons in  support  of  the  findings.
(Vide Santosh Hazari v. Purushottam Tiwari (2001) 3 SCC  179,  SCC  p.  188,
para 15 and Madhukar v. Sangram (2001) 4 SCC 756 SCC p. 758, para 5.)

5. In view of the above salutary principles, on going through  the  impugned
judgment,  we  feel  that  the  High  Court  has  failed  to  discharge  the
obligation placed on it as  a  first  appellate  court.  In  our  view,  the
judgment under appeal is cryptic and none of the relevant aspects have  even
been noticed. The appeal has been decided in an unsatisfactory  manner.  Our
careful perusal of the judgment in the regular first appeal  shows  that  it
falls short of considerations which are expected from  the  court  of  first
appeal. Accordingly, without going into the merits  of  the  claim  of  both
parties, we set aside the impugned judgment and decree  of  the  High  Court
and remand the regular  first  appeal  to  the  High  Court  for  its  fresh
disposal in accordance with law.”



13. The points which arise for determination by  a  court  of  first  appeal
must cover all important questions involved in the case and they should  not
be general and vague. Even though the appellate court would be justified  in
taking a different view on question  of  fact  that  should  be  done  after
adverting to the reasons given  by  the  trial  judge  in  arriving  at  the
finding in question. When appellate court  agrees  with  the  views  of  the
trial court  on  evidence,  it  need  not  restate  effect  of  evidence  or
reiterate reasons given by trial  court;  expression  of  general  agreement
with reasons given by trial court would ordinarily  suffice.  However,  when
the first appellate court reverses the findings of the trial court, it  must
record the findings in clear terms explaining  how  the  reasonings  of  the
trial court is erroneous.

14. In the light of the above, when we consider the present  case,  we  find
that in terms of Order XLI Rule 31 CPC, the High Court  has  neither  framed
the points for determination nor  discussed  the  evidence  adduced  by  the
defendants. The High Court seemed to have only considered two aspects:-  (i)
genealogical  table  produced  by  the  first   respondent-Plaintiff;   (ii)
documentary evidence adduced  by  the  first  respondent-Plaintiff  that  is
Exhibit 13 series-entry in Survey Record of Rights and  Rent  receipts  (Ex.
1/J and Ex. 1/K  to  1/M)  filed  by  the  first  respondent-Plaintiff.  The
documentary evidence adduced by  the  first  respondent-Plaintiff  has  been
refuted by the second respondent-Defendant. To  support  his  defence  plea,
second respondent-Defendant has adduced oral evidence  by  examining  number
of witnesses. That apart, second  respondent-Defendant  mainly  relied  upon
the following evidence of first respondent-Plaintiff (PW-3):-

“Tarawati Devi had purchased total two acres and fifteen decimals  of  land.
I cannot tell the number of sale deeds. I don’t  have  the  knowledge  about
the resignation of her name on the said land. Till the time  of  her  death,
the land purchased by her remained with Tarawati Devi. The land  in  dispute
in two acre and fifteen decimals  in  area.  The  land  in  dispute  in  the
present suit is the land purchased by Tarawati Devi.”



The High Court does not seem to have examined the  above  admission  of  the
first respondent-Plaintiff nor considered the oral evidence adduced  by  the
second respondent-Defendant. Being the  first  appellate  court,  the  final
court on facts, the High Court should have considered the  evidence  adduced
by the first respondent-Plaintiff as well as the  evidence  adduced  by  the
second respondent-Defendant. But the High Court  seems  to  have  considered
only the evidence adduced by the  first  respondent-Plaintiff  and  not  the
evidence  adduced  by  the  second  respondent-Defendant  and  the   alleged
inherent contradictions in the statement of first respondent-Plaintiff.

15. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that yet another  issue
that arose for consideration was the maintainability of the suit in view  of
the proviso to Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. Learned  counsel
for the appellants submitted that the suit  had  been  filed  by  the  first
respondent-Plaintiff for declaration of title to the suit  properties  which
belonged to Tarawati Devi  without  any  further  consequential  relief  for
possession or injunction and the suit was barred in view of the  proviso  to
Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. Proviso to Section  34  of  the
Specific Relief Act, 1963 is as under:-

“Provided  that  no  court  shall  make  any  such  declaration  where   the
plaintiff, being able to seek further relief  than  a  mere  declaration  of
title, omits to do so.”



Drawing our attention to the above proviso to Section  34  of  the  Specific
Relief Act, 1963, the learned counsel for the appellants submitted  that  on
this plea, issue No. 6 was specifically framed by the trial court  and  even
though the trial court decided the issue in favour of the first  respondent-
Plaintiff and the same being raised in the first appellate court,  the  High
Court should have considered the arguments advanced  by  the  appellants  on
the maintainability of the suit.

16. The appellants are the purchasers of various  extent  of  plots  in  the
suit property from the second respondent-Defendant under various sale  deeds
dated  22.11.19958,  29.09.1995,  29.03.1996,  07.08.1995,  20.11.2008   and
03.07.2007. The appellants moved I.A. No. 5250/2010  in  F.A.  No.  230/2007
before the High Court for their impleadment under Order I  Rule  10  of  CPC
and the said application was allowed by the  High  Court  vide  order  dated
02.08.2010. After the appellants were impleaded as parties  in  the  appeal,
the appellants were not given any opportunity  to  adduce  any  evidence  or
make their submission. The High Court has  only  referred  to  the  evidence
adduced by the first respondent-Plaintiff and simply held  that  failure  on
the part of second respondent-Defendant to  establish  his  title  over  the
suit  properties  precludes  the  appellants  from  claiming  any  title  or
interest over the suit scheduled properties, as they had derived  the  title
from  the  defendants.  We  are  of  the  view  that  having  impleaded  the
appellants as parties to the first appeal, it seems inappropriate to  record
such a finding without  affording  an  opportunity  to  the  appellants  and
without examining the claim of  the  present  appellants.  After  impleading
them as parties, without affording an opportunity  to  the  appellants,  the
High Court skirted the  claim  of  the  appellants  by  observing  that  the
appellants having purchased the suit property subsequent to  filing  of  the
suit and if the second respondent-Defendant had no title then  there  is  no
question of transferring any title or interest or possession by  the  second
respondent-Defendant to the transferee arises.  We  find  substance  in  the
contention of the appellants that having been impleaded as  parties  in  the
High Court,  they  ought  to  have  been  given  an  opportunity  to  adduce
additional evidence and make their submission to  substantiate  their  claim
that they are bona fide purchasers for value. In our view, having  impleaded
the appellants, in terms of Order XLI Rule 27 CPC, the High Court  ought  to
have given an opportunity to the appellants to  adduce  additional  evidence
and make their submission.

17. Learned senior counsel  for  the  first  respondent-Plaintiff  submitted
that the second respondent-Defendant has stated in  paragraph  (15)  of  the
written statement that he had sold different portions of the  suit  land  to
different persons. It was submitted that on application filed by  the  first
respondent-Plaintiff,  the  trial  court  passed  an  order  on   27.10.2005
directing the second respondent-Defendant  to  produce  the  sale  deeds  in
question within fifteen days or otherwise he would have no right to  produce
the same. The learned Senior counsel for the plaintiffs  submitted  that  in
spite of the said order, second respondent-Defendant did not produce any  of
the sale deeds and while so, the appellants are precluded from  raising  the
plea of non-affording of opportunity to the appellants and  the  High  Court
rightly held that the appellants cannot claim a better title  than  that  of
the second respondent-Defendant. Before the trial  court,  only  the  second
respondent-Defendant was the party. Any order  passed  by  the  trial  court
against the second respondent-Defendant cannot preclude the appellants  from
putting forth their plea by filing additional documents.

18. As discussed earlier, the High Court has  not  considered  the  evidence
adduced by the defendants. Having impleaded the  appellants  as  parties  in
the first appeal, in terms of Order XLI Rule 27, the  High  Court  ought  to
have  afforded  an  opportunity  to  the  appellants  to  adduce  oral   and
documentary evidence and make their submissions.

19. In the result, the impugned judgment of the High Court in  First  Appeal
No. 230 of 2007 dated 30.07.2007 is set aside and  the  matter  is  remitted
back to the High  Court  for  consideration  of  the  matter  afresh.  First
respondent-Plaintiff,  being  the  appellant  before  the  High  Court,   is
directed to take steps for  impleading  the  legal  representatives  of  the
deceased  second  respondent-Defendant.  The   High   Court   shall   afford
sufficient opportunity to both the parties to  adduce  additional  evidence,
both oral and documentary  and  further  afford  sufficient  opportunity  of
hearing to both the parties. Since the suit is of the year 1994, we  request
the High Court to dispose the appeal expeditiously in accordance  with  law.
We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion  on  the  merits  of
the matter.



                                                             ...……………………….J.

                                                       [R.K. AGRAWAL]





                                                              .………………………..J.

                                                        [R. BANUMATHI]

New Delhi;

December 15, 2016


No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.