On The Death Of Bajranglal Modi His Legal Heir Smt. Prem Lota Modi & Anr. v. Sri Raj Kumar Modi & Ors., 2026

 original plaintiff, Bajranglal Modi, instituted a title suit seeking declaration, eviction, and recovery of khas possession over a property situated at Titabor Town.

The plaintiff claimed ownership rights over the property on the basis that he was the adopted son of late Meghraj Modi.

The defendants challenged the validity of the adoption and contended that the plaintiff was approximately 17 years old on the date of adoption.

It was argued that such adoption violated the provisions of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, which prescribes the permissible age limit for adoption.

The Trial Court held that the plaintiff had not completed 15 years of age at the time of adoption and decreed the suit in his favour.

The First Appellate Court affirmed the findings of the Trial Court.

Subsequently, the Gauhati High Court, in second appeal, reversed the concurrent findings by observing that the plaintiff’s age prior to 1971 had not been properly established.

The earlier High Court judgment relied heavily upon the age mentioned in the adoption deed.

Thereafter, the review petitioners discovered the original school admission register and transfer certificate of Titabor Town Government Junior Basic School.

The review petitioners contended that these documents were previously untraceable despite due diligence and directly established the plaintiff’s age at the relevant time.

The respondents opposed the review petition by alleging absence of due diligence and discrepancies in the school records concerning age gaps among siblings.

The Gauhati High Court observed that the original school admission register was an important piece of evidence directly relevant to determining the plaintiff’s age at the time of adoption.

Justice Mridul Kumar Kalita held that the documents sought to be introduced could materially affect the validity of the adoption and the correctness of the earlier judgment.

The Court emphasized that the genuineness and evidentiary value of the school records could not be conclusively rejected without formally bringing them on record and subjecting them to cross-examination.

The Court observed that discrepancies regarding age gaps between siblings recorded in the register could not automatically render the documents unreliable at the threshold stage.

On the issue of due diligence, the Court held that the question had already been examined by the Supreme Court, and therefore could not be reconsidered again.

The Court concluded that discovery of the original school admission register constituted “new and important matter” sufficient to invoke the review jurisdiction.

The High Court held that such newly discovered evidence justified reopening the second appeal.

Accordingly, the Court allowed the review petition and restored the second appeal for fresh reconsideration.

The judgment reinforces the principle that review jurisdiction may be exercised where genuinely new and material evidence emerges after the original judgment.

The Court carefully balanced the need for finality in litigation with the necessity of ensuring substantive justice.

By permitting reconsideration on the basis of newly discovered documentary evidence, the Court protected against possible miscarriage of justice arising from incomplete records.

The ruling highlights the importance of primary documentary evidence, especially school records, in disputes concerning age and adoption.

The judgment clarifies that evidentiary inconsistencies cannot be conclusively evaluated without a proper trial process including cross-examination.

The Court’s approach reflects judicial caution against prematurely discarding potentially crucial evidence.

The decision also reiterates that findings regarding due diligence, once settled by the Supreme Court, should not ordinarily be reopened.

The ruling contributes significantly to jurisprudence governing review petitions, second appeals, and evidentiary standards in civil litigation.