1

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2027 OF 2019

(@ SLP(C) No. 5344 of 2019)

SRI RAGHAVENDRASWAMY MUTT Appellant(s)

VERSUS

SRI UTTARADI MUTT Respondent(s)

O R D E R

Leave granted.

By the judgment of this Court dated 26 September 2018 in

Civil Appeal No. 9333/2018 titled “Uttaradi Mutt vs.

Raghavendra Swamy Mutt”, the following directions were issued:-

“19. ….Instead, the appeal is restored to the

file of the High Court to its original number.
The High Court shall frame points on which the
additional evidence is allowed to be produced
and direct the First Appellate Court to take
the additional evidence on record in accordance
with law and then return the evidence to the
High Court together with its findings thereon
and the reasons thereof, within the prescribed
time. Such directions be issued by the High
Court expeditiously, preferably within two
months from today. On receipt of the said
report from the First Appellate Court, the High
Court may then consider the Second Appeal on
the substantial questions of law already framed
or such other substantial questions of law that
may arise for its consideration.”
Signature Not Verified

Digitally signed by
MANISH SETHI
Date: 2019.02.27
In the course of its judgment, this Court held that the
17:50:10 IST
Reason:

application filed by the appellant under Order XLI Rule 27 of

the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 was correctly allowed by the

 2

High Court. However, this Court held that instead of remanding

the suit to the Trial court, it would be appropriate for the

High Court to frame the points on which additional evidence

could be adduced by the defendant (the appellant in the present

proceedings) and the first appellate court could be called upon

to record additional evidence inter alia covering the

genuineness and authenticity of the additional evidence

including whether the contents have been duly proved.

In pursuance of the above directions, the High Court has

framed the following points for determination by the first

appellate court:-

“(i) Whether the appellant-defendant i.e., Sri

Raghavendra Swami Mutt proves the existence,
authenticity/genuineness and contents of the
documents that are permitted to be produced by
allowing its three Applications in I.A. Nos. 5, 11
and 12?

(ii) Whether the appellant-defendant i.e., Sri.

Raghavendra Swami Mutt proves that any of the
documents that are permitted to be produced by
allowing the aforesaid three Applications, is/are
spurious, concocted or fraudulently obtained?

(iii) Whether any of the documents that are already

part of the record are genuine or spurious or
obtained by fraud? And,

(iv) What is the effect of the findings to be

recorded by the First Appellate Court concerning the
aforesaid points (i), (ii) & (iii), on the issues
framed in the main proceedings, by both the Courts
below i.e., the Trial Court and the First Appellate
Court?”

We have heard Mr. Kapil Sibal, learned senior counsel

appearing on behalf of the appellant and Mr. Ranjit Kumar,

learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent.

 3

In our view, point No. (i) as framed above is sufficient

to meet the directions of this Court and hence, point Nos. (ii)

and (iii) need not be framed.

Consequently, the points which have been framed by the

High Court shall be confined to point No. (i) and point No.

(iv). However, “(ii) & (iii)” in point No. (iv) shall be

deleted. Point No. (iv) is renumbered as (ii), as a result.

Parties would be at liberty to urge all appropriate

contentions before the High Court in the Second Appeal after

the finding is returned by the first appellate court.

The Civil Appeal is, accordingly, disposed of. No costs.

Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

……………...…...…................J.
(DR. DHANANJAYA Y. CHANDRACHUD)

……………...…...…................J.
(HEMANT GUPTA)

NEW DELHI,
February 25, 2019
 4

ITEM NO.15 COURT NO.12 SECTION IV-A

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 5344/2019

(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 23-01-2019

in RSA No. 100446/2015 passed by the High Court Of Karnataka At
Bengaluru)

SRI RAGHAVENDRASWAMY MUTT Petitioner(s)

VERSUS

SRI UTTARADI MUTT Respondent(s)

(FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.31265/2019-EXEMPTION FROM FILING

C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT )

Date : 25-02-2019 This petition was called on for hearing today.

CORAM :
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE D.Y. CHANDRACHUD
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA

For Petitioner(s)
Mr. Kapil Sibal, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Huzefa A. Ahmadi, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Aljo K. Joseph, AOR
Ms. Shelna K., Adv.

For Respondent(s)
Mr. Ranjit Kumar, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Prashant Kumar, Adv.
Mr. Anil, Adv.
Mr. Amit Deshpande, Adv.
Mr. Saurabh S. Sinha, Adv.
M/S. AP & J Chambers, AOR

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following

O R D E R
Leave granted.

Civil Appeal is disposed of in terms of the signed order.

Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

(MANISH SETHI) (SAROJ KUMARI GAUR)

COURT MASTER (SH) BRANCH OFFICER
(Signed order is placed on the file)