Madras HC Upholds Extra Documents In Heirs’ Dispute Over Alleged 300-Sq-Ft Encroachment, Requires Chance For Defendant To Challenge Them

The first respondent and two others sued Saetu for a mandatory injunction directing him to hand over possession of the disputed property.

The trial court dismissed the suit on 18 April 2024, and the first respondent appealed in A.S. No. 281 of 2024.

After hearing arguments and reserving judgment, the appellate court reopened the appeal and allowed the first respondent’s application under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC to receive six additional documents.

The dispute concerned adjoining Door Nos. 30 and 30A: records of the Official Assignee indicated that 483 sq. ft. at Door No. 30 had been allotted to N. Durai and 375 sq. ft. at Door No. 30A to Rajeswari; the parties claimed through those respective allottees.

Saetu challenged the order allowing additional evidence under Article 227.

Article 227 of the Constitution provides the basis for the High Court’s supervisory jurisdiction over the challenged order.

Order XLI Rule 27 CPC governs the reception of additional evidence in appeal; the Court observed that an appellate court has wider powers to receive such evidence.

Where additional documents are introduced and an Advocate Commissioner is appointed, the opposing party must have an opportunity to cross-examine the witness through whom the documents are marked and to make submissions regarding the Commissioner’s report; the appellate court cannot act on that material without providing such an opportunity.

The appellate court considered the competing claims to adjacent properties and the uncertainty about the extent of land each party possessed.

It considered the additional documents relevant to understanding the door numbers and the parties’ respective allotments, and contemplated appointing an Advocate Commissioner to record the physical features.

The High Court sustained the decision to receive the documents, but clarified that they must be marked through a witness and that Saetu must be afforded an opportunity to cross-examine that witness and address any Commissioner’s report before the appellate court relies on the material.

It directed the appellate court to proceed consistently with the stated procedural safeguards and to dispose of A.S. No. 281 of 2024 on its merits and in accordance with law within three months of receiving a copy of the order.

No costs were awarded; the connected CMP was also dismissed.