ABOOBACKER v. ABDUL RAHIMAN
Case Details & Bench
- Court
- High Court of Kerala
- Hon'ble Judges
- V.G. Arun
- Judgment Date
- 2022-02-22
- Court Decision / Holding
- Interlocutory applications under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC and Order 17 Rule 6 CPC were dismissed; the appellate impugned orders were not interfered with; the petitions were disposed of by upholding the earlier orders.
- Final Disposition
- Disposed of; interlocutory petitions dismissed; impugned orders upheld; no interference with appellate decisions.
Parties to the Case
Appellants / Petitioners
- ABOOBACKER
Respondents
- ABDUL RAHIMAN
Legal Representation & Advocates
Counsels for Petitioners
- • R. Lakshmi Narayan
- • R. Ranjanie
Counsels for Respondents
- • Mahesh V. Menon
Case Synopsis & Summary
The petition concerns OP(C) 1290 of 2021, an appeal from A.S. No. 61 of 2015 arising out of O.S. 794 of 2012 before the Munsiff Court, Wadakkancherry, seeking permanent injunction to restrain the half-brother from trespass into the plaint schedule property. The plaint property traces to settlements by the maternal grandparents in favour of the plaintiff’s mother (document No. 207 of 1970) and subsequent assignments to the plaintiff and his brother, with one brother relinquishing his share. The defendant, the plaintiff’s maternal half-brother, claims title through purchase from Ammed (sale deed No. 116 of 1973) and asserts the original settlement deed is forged. The trial court found Ext. A3 (document No. 207 of 1970) valid and decreed in favour of the plaintiff. On appeal, the petitioner sought to admit additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC (IA 5/2021) to compare signatures of Kadeeyumma in Ext. A3 with Ext. A14 and to summon the original of sale deed No. 205 of 1970 under Order 17 Rule 6 (IA 6/2021). The respondent opposed, arguing no basis to admit new evidence at appellate stage and that due diligence was not shown. The High Court, citing Karnataka Board of Wakf v. Govt. of India, refused to permit the late evidence and dismissed the petitions, upholding the impugned orders. The matter thus stands with the appellate findings intact.
Provisions of Law Cited
Legal Doctrines & Maxims
- Doctrine that parties to an appeal are not ordinarily entitled to admit additional evidence unless due diligence is shown (as reaffirmed in Karnataka Board of Wakf v. Govt. of India).
Submissions & Arguments
Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners
The petitioner sought permission to produce additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC (IA 5/2021) to compare the signature of Kadeeyumma in Ext. A3 (document 207 of 1970) with her signature in Ext. A14 (and to obtain the original of Sale Deed No. 205 of 1970) under Order 17 Rule 6 (IA 6/2021). The aim was to establish forgery/ impersonation and to counter the rival claim of the half-brother who purchased from Ammed. The petitioner contended that the signature discrepancy could prove forgery and that the trial court failed to consider crucial documents. She contended that admission of additional evidence was necessary to pronounce proper judgment, and that due diligence warranted late production of documents.
Contentions of Respondents
The respondent opposed admission of additional evidence at the appellate stage, asserting that no such objection was raised at trial and that necessary steps should have been taken earlier. It was argued that there is no sufficient cause for permiting additional evidence at the appellate stage, and that the signature comparison could have been undertaken in the trial court; the impugned orders should not be interfered with.
Cited Precedents (1)
| Case Name | Citation | Treatment | Explanation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Karnataka Board of Wakf v. Govt. of India | (2004) 10 SCC 779 | Positive | Cited to hold that parties to an appeal are not entitled to produce additional evidence unless due diligence is shown; the present case applied this principle to refuse late documentary evidence. |
Diagnostic Tool
Does this judgment govern your specific facts?
Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against ABOOBACKER v. ABDUL RAHIMAN and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.
Extracted Judgment Text
Exact text extracted from official judgment records.