ARJUN SINGH ALIAS PURAN versus KARTAR SINGH AND OTHERS

Citation: [1951] 1 S.C.R. 258 · Decided: 02-03-1951 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: BIJAN KUMAR MUKHERJEA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

1951 
JC'nh•so . 
Madh11ut1 Menon 
v. 
Tiu Stst1 of 
Bombay. 
19il 
258 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1!151] 
Attorney-General that in any case since 1868 in this 
countrv the rule of construction of statutes is 'the one 
laid down by section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 
1868, 
and that though in express terms that statute 
may not be applicable to the construction of article 
13 ( 1) of the Consmution, yet that rule is a rule of 
justice, equity and good conscience and has become a 
rule of common law in this country and should be app-
lied even to cases where statutes become void by rea-
son of their being repugnant to the Constitution. 
For .the reasons given above I see no force in this 
appeal and I would accordingly dismiss It. 
MuKHERJEA J.-I am in ··entire agreement with the 
view taken by my learned brother Faz! Ali J. in his 
judgment and I concur both in his reasons and his 
conclusion. 
Appeal, dismissed. 
Agent for the appellant : P. G. Gokha/,e. 
Agent for the respondent : P.A. Mehlil. 
ARJUN SINGH alias PURAN 
"· 
KARTAR SINGH AND OTHERS 
[SAIYID FAZL Au, MuKHERJEA and 
CHANDRASEKHARA ArYAR JJ.J 
Civil Procedure Code, 1908, 0. XLl. r. 27-Additional evidence 
-Improper admission-Finding based on such evidence-Whether 
conclusive-lnterference-Puniah Custom Act (II ·of 1920}, s. 7-
Suit to 
contest 
alienation 
of 
non-ancestral 
pr.operty-MOintai"-
ability. 
The discretion to 
receive and admit additional 
evidence iP 
appeal is· not an arbitrarv ·one but is a judicial one 
circum~cribed 
bv the limitatiQJll> specified in 0. XL!, r. 27, of ~ Civil Pr<>-
ccdure Code, and if additional evic!encc was allowed to be adduced 
contrarv 
to 
the 
principles 
gQverning 
the 
reception 
of . such 
evidence. it would be a case of improper exercise of discretion. 
and the additional evidence so brought on the rcOOrd will ~ 
in 
be ignored and the case decided as if ·it was non.existent. 
S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
259 
The legitimate 
occasion for admitting additional evidence in 
appeal is when on examining the evidence as it stands some in-
herent lacuna or defect becomes apparent, nor where a discovery 
is made outside the court, of fresh evidence, and an application 
1s made to import it. 
The true test is whether the appellate 
court is 
able to pronounce 
judgment on the materials before it, 
without taking into consideration the 
additional evidence sought 
to be adduced. 
Kessowji lssur v. G. I. P. Railway (34 I.A. 115) and Parsotim 
v. Lal Mohan (58 I.A. 254) referred to. 
Though ordinarily a finding of fact, 
however erroneous, can-
not be challenged in second appeal, a finding which is arrived at 
oh tJie basis of additional evidence which ought not to have been 
admitted 
and 
without any 
consideration of 
the 
intrinsic arid 
palpable defects in the nature of such evidence cannot be accept-
ed as a finding which is conclusive on appeal. 
Under s. 7 of the Punjab Act II of 1920 no one can contest 
an alienation 
of · non-ancestral immoveable 
property on the 
ground that such alienation is contrary to custom. 
C1VIL 
APPELLATE 
JuRisoxcnoN : Appeal 
(Civil 
Appeal No. 31 of 1950) against a judgment and decree 
dated 28th February, 1946, of the High Court of 
Judicature at 
Lahore 
tn 
Regular 
Second 
Appeal 
No. 887 of 1942. 
Ram Lal Anand (Harbans Lal Mittal,· with him} for 
the appellant. 
Bakshi Tek Chand (P. S. Safeer, with him) for the 
respondents. 
1951. March 2. 
The Judgment of the Court was 
delivered by. 
CHANDRASEKHARA 
A1Y.AR 
J .-The 
plaintiff, Arjun 
Singh alias Puran, brought a suit in the court of the 
Subordinate Judge.. 
Jullundur, again.st 
Inder 
Singh, 
Kartar Singh and five 
others, for a declaration that a 
will executed by the first defendant, Inder Singh, in 
favour of the second defendant, ,Kartar Singh, about 
14 years ago was null and void as against the plaintiff, 
who was the first defendant's reversionary heir after 
his death. 
The plaint comprised a half share of land 
measuring 395 kanals 'in the village of Kadduwal1 
1951 
A'.i•• Sap 
v •. 
K•rt•r SiR1h 
i/iti Othtr1. 
Chandraselckart1 
A{i·•r j. 
19SI 
.lfjm. Siligla-
v. 
Irartor Sin;1i· 
li'1ll °'""'· 
Ckcndrastkhara 
Aiyar J. 
260 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1951] 
another half share of land measuring 837 kanals and 11 
marlas in the village of Pattar Kalan, and four houses 
in the latter village. 
In the pedigree attached to the 
plaint showing the relationship of the parties, the 
plaintiff claims Sehja s\.ngh :i

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.