BUSSA CHINNA REDDY Vs. GANGAVARAM GOVINDA REDDI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The only ground of appeal in this case is that the lower appellate Court improperly refused to admit fresh evidence in appeal. This is not a ground upon which a second appeal is sustainable. It was decided in Vaithinatha Pillai V/s. Kuppa Thevar [1919] 43 Mad. 737: that where a lower appellate Court refuses to admit a certain material document as additional evidence in the appeal under Order 41, Rule 27, Civil P. C. the High Court cannot interfere in second appeal and hold that such additional evidence ought to have been admitted by the lower appellate Court.

(2.) Mr. Narasimhachari for the appellant contends that the authority of this decision is considerably shaken by the recent decision of the Privy Council in Indrajit Protap Bahadur Sahi V/s. Amar Singh A. I. R. [1923] P. C. 128 In that case this point was not specifically decided. The point there was whether the appellate Court was entitled to admit additional evidence and their Lordships of the Privy Council held that it was open to the appellate Court for sufficient reasons to admit additional evidence, and fresh evidence was admitted before the Privy Council. That decision does not in any way conflict with the decision in Vaithinatha Pillai v. Kuppa Thevar [1919] 43 Mad. 737.

(3.) The second appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.