BANAJIGARA KOTRAMMA Vs. BANAJIGARA LALITAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal is by the defendant. I have heard the counsel appearing for the appellant and perused the judgments of the two courts. By the impugned judgment, the first Appellate Court has set aside the judgment of the trial Court and has remitted the matter to the trial Court for fresh disposal in accordance with law inter alia by permitting the plaintiff to produce certain documents as additional evidence.

(2.) IN support of the sole contention that the first Appellate Court ought not to have entertained the application filed by the respondent -plaintiff under Order 41 Rule 27 of the CPC for production of additional evidence, the counsel has relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Ibrahim Uddin & Anr. ( : 2012 AIAR (Civil) 728).

(3.) THE husband of the appellant (defendant) and the husband of the respondent (plaintiff) are full brothers. The suit filed by the respondent - plaintiff for declaration and injunction in respect of the suit property measuring 2 acres was dismissed by the Trial Court. The plaintiff carried the matter in appeal to the first Appellate Court and in the appeal, filed an application to produce a registered partition deed, a mortgage deed and two registered sale deeds as additional evidence.