Order XLI Rule 27 CPC: Parties do not possess vested right to produce additional evidence at appellate stage - Supreme Court
The Supreme
Court of India dismissed the Appeal of Appellant, Gobind Singh by affirming the
judgment of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh who had dismissed the application
of the Appellant under Order XLI Rule 27
of Civil Procedure Code in the review petition with observation that once trial
had concluded and the decree was under challenge in appeal, the appellant was
not permitted to adduce further material to fortify a claim that was fundamentally
flawed (Gobind Singh And Ors Vs Union Of
India And Ors.)
BRIEF
FACTS
The
appellant/plaintiffs, in the instant case owned and possessed a plot of land
and in the year 1989 the Respondent, Union
of India, entered upon the property with the intent to remove wire fencing
and demolish two shop constructed by the appellant/plaintiffs and the standing
crops on the said land. Subsequently the appellant/plaintiffs instituted a
civil suit seeking declaration of title and a decree of permanent injunction
restraining the defendants from interfering with the suit with the assertion
that the suit property was ancestral property and that the their forefathers
had been in continuous possession since fifty years..
The
trial Court decreed in favour of the plaintiffs holding that the title,
ownership and possession of the property vested in the plaintiffs and respondent/defendants
failed to establish any title in their favour.
Aggrieved,
the respondent preferred first appeal before the High Court. During pendency of
appeal, the appellant/plaintiffs filed an application under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil
Procedure,1908 seeking to place additional documents. The documents
pertained to certified copies of the General Land Register maintained by the
Respondent and said documents demonstrated that the suit property as a private
property.
The
High Court allowed the appeal of respondent/defendants holding that the appellant/plaintiffs
claimed perfection of title on the basis of a decree passed in an earlier suit
to which the respondent/defendants were not parties.
Therefore
being aggrieved, the appellant/plaintiffs preferred review before High Court on
the ground that application for additional evidence was not decided. The
Court, not only dismissed the review but
also application for producing additional evidence and affirmed the first
appeal and also set aside decree of trial Court with cost of Rs.
2000/-.
Hence,
appellant/plaintiffs approached the Supreme Court with prayer for setting aside
the impugned judgment of High Court and affirming the decree of trial Court.
SUBMISSIONS
OF APPELLANT
The Learned Counsel for the appellant, Shri Anupam Lal Dass submitted the High
Court has acted contrary to law in deciding the appeal without first
adjudicating the application under Order
XLI Rule 27 of CPC.
It
was also submitted that the predecessors-in-interest had instituted a civil
suit against the State seeking declaration of title and has attained finality
of judgment after the suit had been decreed by the competent Court.
The
appellant have been in continuous possession of the suit property since the
time of their forefathers and had perfected title by way of adverse possession
– appellant submitted.
On
the other had Learned Senior Counsel on behalf of the respondents, Shri V. Chitambresh strongly opposed
the submissions and submitted that the suit property was vested in the Union
Government in the year 1953 upon transfer of ownership from State Government.
The
ex parte decree passed in the civil suit against the State of MP instituted by
predecessor-in-interest of the appellant/plaintiffs does not bind the Union of
India who were neither impleaded nor afforded an opportunity to be heard in the
said suit – respondent submitted.
It
was also submitted that the High Court has rightly rejected the application
under Order XLI Rule 27 of CPC in the review petition on ground of misplaced
and without any merit because application did not fall within the four
principles laid down in the Order.
ANALYSIS
Given the fact
of the case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court came up for consideration that whether
the High Court’s omission to expressly adjudicate the application of the appellant/plaintiffs
under Order XLI Rule 27 while deciding the first appeal resulting injustice or
miscarriage of justice.
The
High Court has committed no error by dismissing the review petition and an
application Order XLI Rule 27.
Rule
27 abundantly makes it clear that the parties to an appeal are not entitled to
adduce additional evidence whether oral or documentary except in the
circumstances:
1. Where
the Court which passed the decree has refused to admit evidence which ought to
have been admitted;
2. Where
the party seeking to adduce such evidence establishes that, nothwithstanding the exercise of due
diligence, the evidence was not within its knowledge or could not have been
produced at the time when the decree under appeal was passed; and
3. Where the appellate Court itself requires any document to be produced or any witness to be examined in order to enable it to pronounce judgment or for any other substantial cause.
Thus
the appellate Court may permit additional evidence only upon being satisfied
that the conditions expressly stipulated under Order XLI Rule 27 of CPC are
fulfilled. The parties do not possess any vested or automatic right to seek
admission of additional evidence at the appellate stage – Court said.
“The procedural framework under Order XLI
of CPC is abundantly clear that an appeal is ordinarily to be decided on the
evidence adduced before the Trial Court. The Appellate Court is not expected to
embark upon a fresh fact-finding exercise or permit production of additional
evidence as a matter of routine. Where the Appellate Court is satisfied that
the material already available on record is sufficient to enable it to
pronounce judgment, it is well within its jurisdiction to confine its
consideration to the evidence forming part of the record of the courts below” –
Court quoted.
The top Court also
appreciated the decisions of High Court in dismissing the review petition on
the observation that the predecessor-in-interest had not impleaded the respondent/defendants
who were the lawful owners of the suit property. So the earlier decree was not
binding upon the respondent/defendants. Therefore, there was no legal sanctity
attached to subsequent entries made in the revenue records on the strength of
the earlier decree by the appellant/plaintiffs
Supreme
Court now observed that once the findings of trial Court has been set aside,
where the entire claim of ownership was based on the earlier decree and
consequent entries in revenue record, the onus lies on the appellant/plaintiffs
to establish their title in the suit property independently.
The present suit being one for
declaration of title, it was incumbent upon the appellant/plaintiffs, if they
indeed possessed a valid title, to adduce their best and complete evidence at
the stage of trial before the court of first instance, where such evidence
could have been produced as a matter of right – Supreme Court viewed.
The
Court also analysed that the appellant/plaintiff did not produce any documentary
evidence such as the cogent title deeds to establish the valid title of the suit
property. And also no plea of adverse possession was ever raised against the
respondent/defendants in the trial Court.
Mere recording of the land in suit as
private land in the GLR does not in any manner benefit the appellant/plaintiffs
claim of ownership – Court viewed.
Before
parting, the Hon’ble Supreme Court expressed disapproval of the unscrupulous litigants
like the appellant/plaintiffs and their predecessors, their manner in
conducting themselves. The Court also said, the attempt to secure a decree
behind the back of the true owner is a circumstance that cannot be lightly
brushed aside.
Gobind Singh And Ors Vs Union Of India And Ors.(
Civil
Appeal Nos. 5168-5169 Of 2011)
Coram: Justice Vikram Nath And Justice Sandeep Mehta
Date of Judgment: 9 March, 2026
Also Read: Conversion Extinguishes Scheduled Caste Status under Constitution (Scheduled Caste) Order, 1950.
0 Comments