K. Narayanappa Vs. S.A. Damodar

code of civil procedure, 1908 (central act no. 5 of 1908) - section -- 151 and order xviii rule 17a -- producing documents and recalling of witness at a late stage. if permissible -yes. - section 6 (as amended by act 39 of 2005): [anand byrareddy,j] right to seek partition of coparcenary property provisions of act can be enforced when the right to succession opens and not before. petitioners father is said to be alive and hence her right to succession as a coparcener has not opened. word devolve in heading of section 6 means to pass from a person dying to a person living. section 6(1)(c) (as amended by act (39 of 2005) and section 6a9as amended by (karnataka amendment)act, (1956): [anand byrareddy, j] right of unmarried daughter of coparcener to challenge testamentary disposition of property which has taken place before 20th december, 2004 held, said right conferred under karnataka amendment was taken away by virtue of central amendment act 39 of 2005. karnataka amendment act came into effect from 30-7-1994 whereas the central amendment act came into effect from 9-9-2005. latter prevails over the former in terms of article 254 (1) of the constitution of india. section 6(1)(c) proviso (as amended by act 39 of 2005): [anand byrareddy,j] right of daughter of coparcener - proviso to section 6(1) vide amendment denies an equal right to a daughter of a coparcener, to question any disposition or alienation of coparcenary property prior to 20-12.2004, vis--vis a son is arbitrary and violative of article 14 of the constitution of india. rational basis on which said restriction is placed is not apparent from examination of statement of objects and reasons to the amendment act and contents of 17th report of law commission of india. avowed object of legislation is to create equal rights as between a daughter and a son of a coparcener. - it is open to the other party to cross-examine and prove that the evidence adduced is not believable and not reliable. i am.....ordert.n. vallinayagam, j.this revision is filed against the order dated 31.3.1997 passed by the judge, court of small causes (scch.5), bangalore, permitting the petitioner in h.r.c. no. 1212 of 1994 to produce documents and recalling p.w.1 for further evidence.the contentions taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner are:(1) his objections to recalling p.w.1 and production of documents were not at all considered by the court below; (2) the order of the court below does not satisfy the requirements of order xviii rule 17a of the code of civil procedure; (3) the provisions of section 151 of the code of civil procedure could not have been invoked; and (4) when arguments are over, documents cannot be produced. i have given the learned counsel for the petitioner sufficient opportunity to explain the prejudice that may be caused to his client if the petitioner in h.r.c. no. 1212 of the 1994 is permitted to produce documents and if p.w.1 is recalled for further evidence. he is not able to convince me as to what prejudice will be caused to his client if further evidence is adduced by p.w.1 and documents are produced.in any proceedings evidence is more important and nobody should be shut off or prevented from producing documents at his command. it is open to the other party to cross-examine and prove that the evidence adduced is not believable and not reliable. in respect of the documents also it is open to the other party to question the genuineness and validity, of the documents and their relevancy to the issue involved. the parties cannot be prevented or their request to produce documents cannot be nipped in the bud. i am not able to find any merit in the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner and i am satisfied that the order passed by the court below is correct and does not call for interference by this court.house rent revision petition is dismissed.