LexStreakRead free →
Madras High Court· 28 July 2026

Can an appellate court receive additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 where the contentions it is meant to establish have become academic?

Elavarasi v. Kunjithabatham
2026:MHC:3181 · CMA No. 2164 of 2014
Coram: Justice N. Anand Venkatesh
🔖 Save this judgment🔔 Follow s.26 Hindu Succession Act, 1956📬 Get today's judgments
View the original judgment PDFFree to read. To download it — or the LexStreak typeset copy with the headnote and Points of Law — create an account; downloads are part of the Pro plan.
Answer

No. Where the coming into force of a later Central Act and the judgment of the Apex Court have rendered the contentions academic, and where the statutory bar relied upon does not in law apply, no useful purpose will be served in recording evidence on the documents sought to be brought in. The order allowing the interlocutory applications and remanding the matter to the trial court for that limited purpose is liable to be set aside, and the appeal must be disposed of on merits.

Headnote

Hindu Succession Act, 1956 — s.26 — Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — Order 41 Rule 27 — Disqualification on conversion — Additional evidence — Remand — Hindu Succession Act, 1956 — s.26 — Convert not disqualified from inheriting — Held: A plain reading of Section 26 makes it clear that it is only the descendants of the convert who are disqualified from inheriting the property of any of their Hindu relatives; the disqualification does not apply to the convert. (¶13, 16) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — Order 41 Rule 27 — Additional evidence — No useful purpose — Held further: Where the contentions the additional evidence is meant to establish have become academic, no useful purpose will be served in recording that evidence, and the order allowing the applications and remanding the suit is liable to be set aside. (¶11, 17) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — Order 41 Rule 27 — Disposal of appeal on merits — Held further: The lower appellate court must dispose of the appeal and the cross appeal on merits within the time frame fixed, all contentions on merits remaining open to both sides. Appeal and civil revision petitions allowed. (¶17, 18)

In the Court's own words
Paragraph 11Even though various contentions were raised on both sides, all those contentions will become academic in view of the coming into force of the Central Act viz., Act 39 of 2005 with effect from 09.09.2005 and also the judgment of the Apex Court in Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma reported in (2020) 9 SCC 1. 8
Paragraph 16This Court finds a lot of force in the above submission made by the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant/petitioner. A plain reading of Section 26 of the Act, makes it clear that it is only the descendants of the convert who are disqualified from inheriting and this disqualification will not apply to the convert. Therefore, even assuming that the plaintiff has converted to Christianity, Section 26 of the Act does not disqualify the plaintiff to claim for the share in the suit properties. In view of the same, no useful purpose will be served in recording the evidence in this regard by the Trial Court.
Paragraph 17In the light of the above discussion, the judgment and decree passed by the lower Appellant Court in A.S.No.45 of 2012, dated 22.4.2014 has to be set aside and the Appellate Court must be directed to dispose of the appeal and cross appeal on merits within the time frame fixed by this Court. The order passed by the lower Appellate Court allowing the four interlocutory applications in IA.Nos.23/2012, 37/2013, 38/2013 and 1/2014, are also liable to be set aside since no useful purpose will be served in adducing additional evidence. 10
Acts & Sections
s.26 Hindu Succession Act, 1956Order 41 Rule 27 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005

One judgment a day. That's the whole habit.

Read the full text of Elavarasi v. Kunjithabatham — and get the Supreme Court's output as a five-minute daily read, with plain-language headnotes and the questions each judgment settles.

Create my free account

Free forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India

Open the full judgment →

Also decided in this judgment
Does Section 26 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 disqualify a convert from claiming a share in the property of her Hindu relatives?
Plain-language answer prepared by the LexStreak Editorial Desk — verify against the judgment. Source: Madras High Court. Corrections