M.K. NARASIMHAPPA S/O KONDAPPA Vs. SRI KONDAPPA S/O CHICKPAIAH, SMT. VENKATALAKSHMAMMA W/O LATE GANGALAPPA D/O BHEJENDTRI VENKATARAMANAPPA, SRI G.B. FAKRUDDIN S/O MANDI BUDENSAB AND SRI T.N. NAGARAJA S/O SUNDRAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER is aggrieved by the rejection of the application filed seeking to lead further evidence by producing two documents namely, cumulative record and genealogical tree.

(2.) PETITIONER is the plaintiff before the trial Court. The trial Court has rejected this request holding that the matter was remanded by the High Court as per the order passed in MSA No. 128/04 for fresh decision and the plaintiff did not state anything in his affidavit as to how the two documents sought to be produced were necessary for adjudication of the case. The court below has further found that for effective adjudication of the dispute, documents sought to be produced were not necessary. Hence, the request for production of the documents and for leading further evidence is rejected.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the cumulative record and the genealogical tree are necessary as the purchasers, defendants 4 and 5 in their written statement at paragraph -5 have denied the assertions made by the plaintiff that he was the son of Lakshmamma.