Genuine proof of alleged transfer and limited admission of additional appellate evidence shape redemption dispute outcome

A defence to a suit for redemption failed where the alleged agreement said to transfer the mortgagors' interest was not proved genuine on the evidence and surrounding circumstances, so the mortgagors' transferees retained the right to redeem. The commentary also states that additional evidence on appeal may be admitted only when the appellate court itself requires it for judgment or some substantial cause, and not to fill gaps in a party's case after an adequate trial opportunity. On that basis, fresh evidence should not have been received, and the decree restoring redemption was upheld in principle.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the alleged agreement relied upon by the mortgagees was genuine and constituted a valid answer to the suit for redemption. (ii) Whether the appellate court was justified in admitting additional evidence to support the mortgagees' case.

Issue (i): Whether the alleged agreement relied upon by the mortgagees was genuine and constituted a valid answer to the suit for redemption.

Analysis: The decisive defence depended on proving the alleged agreement, which was said to transfer the mortgagors' interest in the property to the mortgagees. On a close examination of the evidence, the surrounding circumstances created serious suspicion, and the proof adduced was found insufficient to establish the document's genuineness. As the defence failed on this central factual issue, the mortgagors' transferees retained their right to redeem.

Conclusion: The alleged agreement was not proved genuine, and the redemption claim succeeded.

Issue (ii): Whether the appellate court was justified in admitting additional evidence to support the mortgagees' case.

Analysis: The governing rule permits additional evidence only where the appellate court itself requires it for pronouncing judgment or for some substantial cause, and not to enable a party to fill gaps in an unsuccessful case. The record showed that the parties had ample opportunity in the trial court, and the procedural conditions for admitting fresh evidence were not satisfied. The power to receive such evidence was required to be exercised sparingly and only when directly necessary on a main issue.

Conclusion: The additional evidence ought not to have been admitted.

Final Conclusion: The appellate decision was set aside, the trial court's decree restoring redemption was restored, and the appellants obtained the substantive relief claimed.

Ratio Decidendi: A document propounded as the foundation of a defence must be proved by reliable evidence, and additional evidence on appeal can be admitted only when the appellate court itself finds it necessary for decision and not to patch up omissions in the case below.

---