Karnataka HC Sets Aside Sisters’ Partition Decree For Now, Remands Case To Weigh New Evidence And One Plaintiff’s Confirmation Deed To Buyer

Respondent-plaintiffs sued for partition, claiming shares in properties allotted to their mother under a registered partition deed.

The Trial Court dismissed the suit, finding that the properties were not proved to be joint-family properties and that the suit was bad for partial partition.

The First Appellate Court reversed and decreed the suit, awarding each plaintiff a one-fourth share.

In the second appeal, the appellant sought to introduce 17 additional documents under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC.

He also produced a registered confirmation deed dated 7 June 2021, executed by the first plaintiff in his favour during the appeal.

Order XLI Rule 27 CPC permits an appellate court to receive additional evidence where the conditions in the rule are met, including where the evidence could not, despite due diligence, have been produced earlier, or where the appellate court requires it to pronounce judgment or for another substantial cause; the court must record reasons for admitting it.

Relying on Chowdappa v. Hanumantharayappa, 2026 INSC 816, the Court reiterated that an appellate court must decide an application under Rule 27 on its merits, consider it alongside the appeal, and give reasons for allowing or rejecting it.

The appeal was brought under Section 100 CPC, but the Court did not finally determine the substantive partition questions.

The Court considered the documents listed in the appellant’s application relevant to the disputed issues and accepted the affidavit’s uncontroverted account that, despite due diligence, they had not been produced earlier. It therefore allowed their receipt on record.

The Court also considered the confirmation deed executed by the first plaintiff during the appeal to be a subsequent event requiring consideration.

Because both sides needed an opportunity to address the additional material and adduce evidence, the Court remitted the matter rather than deciding the parties’ competing claims on the merits.

It allowed I.A. No. 2/2014, directed transmission of the application and documents to the First Appellate Court, permitted both sides to adduce further oral and documentary evidence, and directed the appellate court to consider the 2021 confirmation deed and issue notice to respondents Nos. 2–4.

The Court expressed no view on the merits of the rival claims, leaving the substantial questions of law to be answered in light of the fresh consideration.