1 2025:CGHC:55863 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SA No. 526 of 2003 1 - Murti Shri Ramchandra Swami Mandir Sorla, Tahsil Bemetara, Distt. Durg Through Santosh Kumar Vaishnav As A Sarvarakar 2 - Chandrika Das (Died Through Lrs) (As Per Hon'ble Court Order Dated 11-09-2025) 2.1 - Jayanti Bai W/o Chandrika Das Vaishnav R/o Village Sorla, Post - Kusmi, Tahsil Berla, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh 2.2 - Swarnprabha D/o Chandrika Das Vaishnav Aged About 55 Years R/o Village Sorla, Post - Kusmi, Tahsil Berla, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh 2.3 - Hem Prabha Vaishnav W/o Dinesh Das Vaishnav Aged About 53 Years R/o Shakti Nagar, Near Vardhman Nagar, Rajnandgaon 2.4 - Santosh Kumar Vaishnav S/o Late Chandrika Das Vaishnav Aged About 51 Years R/o Village Sorla, Post - Kusmi, Tahsil Berla, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh 2.5 - Sangita Vaishnav W/o Suresh Das Vaishnav Aged About 49 Years R/o Village, Post And Tahsil Abhanpur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2.6 - Laxmi Vaishnav W/o Shiv Kumar Vaishnav Aged About 48 Years R/o Katalvahi, Post Devkatta, Tahsil Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh 2.7 - Rishi Kumar Vaishnav S/o Late Chandrika Das Vaishnav Aged About 46 Years R/o Village Sorla, Post - Kusmi, Tahsil Berla, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh Digitally signed by AJINKYA PANSARE Date: 2025.11.20 10:48:13 +0530 2 2.8 - Ravindra Kumar Vaishnav S/o Late Chandrika Das Vaishnav Aged About 44 Years R/o Village Sorla, Post - Kusmi, Tahsil Berla, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh --- Appellants versus 1 - Gulab Das (Died Through Lrs) As Per Hon'ble Court Order Dated 11-09-2025 1.1 - Durgabai Wd/o Damodar Das Aged About 50 Years R/o Village Bharari, Tahsil - Malhar, Distt - Bilaspur 2 - Onkar S/o Baisakhu Aged About 20 Years R/o Village Sorela, Tahsil Bemetara, Distt. Durg 3 - Rohit S/o Baisakhu Aged About 18 Years R/o Village Sorela, Tahsil Bemetara, Distt. Durg 4 - Keju Prasad (Died Through Lrs) As Per Hon'ble Court Order Dated 11-09-2025 4.1 - Chhakan Tiwari S/o Keju Prasad Tiwari Aged About 50 Years Present R/o Ahiwar, Near Bus Stand, District Durg Chhattisgarh As Respondent No. 4-A 4.2 - Ravindra Tiwari S/o Keju Prasad Tiwari Aged About 45 Years R/o C/o Jamul Nagar Palika Karmachari Distt. Durg Chhattisgarh As Respondent No. 4b 4.3 - Pushpa Bai D/o Late Keju Prasad Tiwari C/o Smt. Chameli Bai Wd/o Late Keju Prasad Tiwari , R/o Village Sorla, Tahsil Berla, Distt. Durg Chhattisgarh As Respondent No. 4c 4.4 - Munni Bai D/o Late Keju Prasad Tiwari C/o Smt. Chameli Bai Wd/o Late Keju Prasad Tiwari , R/o Village Sorla, Tahsil Berla, Distt. Durg Chhattisgarh As Respondent No. 4d 4.5 - Lata Bai D/o Late Keju Prasad Tiwari C/o Smt. Chameli Bai Wd/o Late Keju Prasad Tiwari , R/o Village Sorla, Tahsil Berla, Distt. Durg Chhattisgarh As Respondent No. 4e 4.6 - Usha Bai D/o Late Keju Prasad Tiwari C/o Smt. Chameli Bai Wd/o 3 Late Keju Prasad Tiwari , R/o Village Sorla, Tahsil Berla, Distt. Durg Chhattisgarh As Respondent No. 4f 4.7 - Uttra Bai D/o Late Keju Prasad Tiwari C/o Smt. Chameli Bai Wd/o Late Keju Prasad Tiwari , R/o Village Sorla, Tahsil Berla, Distt. Durg Chhattisgarh As Respondent No. 4g 5 - State Of M.P. (Now Chhattisgarh) Through The Collector, Durg --- Respondents WITH SA No. 527 of 2003 1 - Murti Shri Ramchandra Swami Mandirandanr R/o Sorla, Tahsil Bemetara, Distt. Durg Through- Sarvarakar Asanna Mitra Best Friend Chandrika Das S/o Tukaram Das , Chhattisgarh 2 - Chandrika Das (Died Through Lrs) As Per Honble Court Order Dated 10-10-2025 2.1 - (A) Jayanti Bai W/o Chandrika Das Vaishnav R/o Village- Sorla, Post- Kusmi, Tahsil- Berla, Distt. Bemetara (C.G.) 2.2 - (B) Swarnprabha D/o Chandrika Das Vaishnav Aged About 62 Years R/o Village- Sorla, Post- Kusmi, Tahsil- Berla, Distt. Bemetara (C.G.) 2.3 - (C) Hem Prabha Vaishnav W/o Dinesh Das Vaishnav Aged About 60 Years R/o Shakti Nagar Near Vardhaman Nagar, Rajnandgaon 2.4 - (D) Santosh Kumar Vaishnav S/o Late Chandrika Das Vaishnav Aged About 58 Years R/o Village- Sorla, Post- Kusmi, Tahsil- Berla, Distt. Bemetara (C.G.) 2.5 - (E) Sangita Vaishav W/o Suresh Das Vaishnav Aged About 57 Years R/o Village Post And Tahsil- Abhanpur, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) 2.6 - (F) Laxmi Vaishnav W/o Shiv Kumar Vaishnav Aged About 56 Years R/o Katalvahi, Post- Devkatta, Tahsil- Dongargarh, Distt. Rajnandgaon 4 2.7 - (G) Rishi Kumar Vaishnav S/o Late Chandrika Das Vaishnav Aged About 52 Years R/o Village- Sorla, Post- Kusmi, Tahsil- Berla, Distt. Bemetara (C.G.) 2.8 - (H) Ravindra Kumar Vaishnav S/o Late Chandrika Das Vaishnav Aged About 50 Years R/o Village- Sorla, Post- Kusmi, Tahsil- Berla, Distt. Bemetara (C.G.) ---Appellants Versus 1 - Gulab Das (Died) Throug Legal Representative As Per Honble Court Order Dated 22-10-2018 And 11-09-2025. 1.1 - Durgabai Wd/o Damodar Das Aged About 50 Years R/o Vill. Bharari, Tah.- Malhar, Distt- Bilaspur 2 - Janakdas S/o Bisesing Aged About 35 Years R/o Village Sorla, Tah. Bemetara, Distt. Durg Chhattisgarh , District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 3 - Ramau (Died) Through Legal Representatives As Per Honble Court Order Dated 22-10-2018 And 11-09-2025. 3.1 - Sushila Bai W/o Ramsaran Sahu Aged About 50 Years R/o Surholi Tah. Berla, Distt. Durg, Chhattisgarh 3.2 - Kaushalya Bai W/o Faguram Aged About 45 Years R/o Devsundra, Tah. Baloda Bazar, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3.3 - Melaram S/o Ramou Aged About 44 Years R/o Gram Post Sakra, Tah. Berla, Distt. Durg, C.G. 3.4 - Nirmala W/o Lekhram Sahu Aged About 34 Years R/o Silghat, Tah. Berla, Distt. Durg, Chhattisgarh 3.5 - Ganesh Ram S/o Ramou Aged About 31 Years R/o Sorlaa, Post Kushmi, Tah. Berla, Distt.- Durg, Chhattisgarh 4 - Aghanu S/o Sukhram Aged About 45 Years R/o Village Sorla, Tah. Bemetara, Distt. Durg Chhattisgarh , District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 5 5 - Smt. Bisahin Bai W/o Bhakla @ Bhatuwa Aged About 35 Years R/o Village Sorla, Tah. Bemetara, Distt. Durg Chhattisgarh , District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 6 - Badara Bai (Died And Deleted) As Per Honble Court Order Dated 27-03-2015. 7 - Pardeshi @ Dhunkel S/o Khorbahra Aged About 45 Years R/o Village Sorla, Tah. Bemetara, Distt. Durg Chhattisgarh, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 8 - Ramsohagil (Died And Deleted) As Per Honble Court Order Dated 27-03-2015. 9 - Sahodra Bai D/o Khorbahra Sahu Aged About 25 Years R/o Village Sorla, Tah. Bemetara, Distt. Durg Chhattisgarh , District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 10 - Tijan Bai W/o Dukalaha Sahu Aged About 28 Years R/o Village Sorla, Tah. Bemetara, Distt. Durg Chhattisgarh , District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 11.1 - (A) Bhagela (Died Through Lrs) As Per Honble Court Order Dated 10-10-2025 11.1.1 - (A) Tijiya Bai Kewat W/o Bhagela Aged About Major R/o Village Sorla, Tahsil And Thana Berla, Distt. Bemetara, C.G. 11.1.2 - (B) Phoolsingh Kewat S/o Bhagela Aged About Major R/o Village Sorla, Tahsil And Thana Berla, Distt. Bemetara, C.G. 11.1.3 - (C) Fherin Bai Kewat D/o Bhagela Aged About Major R/o Village Takam, Tahsil And Thana Berla, Distt. Bemetara, C.G. 11.1.4 - (D) Radhiya Bai Kewat D/o Bhagela Aged About Major R/o Village Kathiya, Tahsil, Thana And Distt. Bemetara, C.G. 11.1.5 - (E) Ansuiya Bai Kewat D/o Bhagela Aged About Major R/o Village Bharda, Tahsil And Thana Berla, Distt. Bemetara C.G. 11.1.6 - (F) Shivbati Bai Kewat D/o Bhagela Aged About Major R/o Village Bhalesar, Tahsil And Thana Berla, Distt. Bemetara C.G. 6 11.1.7 - (G) Radha Bai Kewat D/o Bhagela Aged About Major R/o Village Sorla, Tahsil Berla, Distt. Bemetara C.G. 11.2 - (B) Diwali S/o Vishram Aged About 43 Years Farmer And R/o Village Sorla, Tah. Bemetara, Distt. Durg Chhattisgarh 11.3 - (C) Bali S/o Vishram Aged About 40 Years Farmer And R/o Village Sorla, Tah. Bemetara, Distt. Durg Chhattisgarh 11.4 - (D) Govardhan S/o Vishram Aged About 25 Years Farmer And R/o Village Sorla, Tah. Bemetara, Distt. Durg Chhattisgarh 11.5 - (E) Bala S/o Vishram Aged About 38 Years Farmer And R/o Village Sorla, Tah. Bemetara, Distt. Durg Chhattisgarh 11.6 - (F) Deokunwar (Died And Deleted) As Per Honble Court Order Dated 27-03-2015. 12 - Shatruhan (Died Through Lrs) As Per Honble Cour Order Dated 10-10-2025 12.1 - (A) Smt. Shanta W/o Late Satrughan Sahu Aged About 72 Years R/o Village Sorla, Tahsil Berla, Distt. Bemetara (C.G.) 12.2 - (B) Dinbandu Sahu S/o Late Satrughan Sahu Aged About 55 Years R/o Village Sorla, Tahsil Berla, Distt. Bemetara (C.G.) 12.3 - (C) Bhola S/o Late Satrughan Sahu Aged About 47 Years R/o Village Sorla, Tahsil Berla, Distt. Bemetara (C.G.) 12.4 - (D) Smt. Kundan Bai D/o Late Satrughan Sahu Aged About 57 Years R/o Village Anandgaon, Tahsil Berla, Distt. Bemetara C.G. 12.5 - (E) Smt. Bhupti Sahu D/o Late Satrughan Sahu Aged About 49 Years R/o Village Deori, Tahsil Berla, Distt. Bemetara 12.6 - (F) Smt. Pratima D/o Satrughan Sahu Aged About 45 Years R/o Village Lenjwara, Tahsil Berla, Distt. Bemetara, C.G. 13 - (A) Umabai W/o Wd/o Samliya Sahu Aged About 38 Years R/o Village Sorla, Tah. Bemetara, Distt. Durg Chhattisgarh, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 7 13.1 - (B) Ramjsajiwan S/o Samliya Sahu Aged About 20 Years Farmer And R/o Village Sorla, Tah. Bemetara, Distt. Durg Chhattisgarh 13.2 - (C) Bhupendra S/o Samliya Sahu Aged About 18 Years Farmer And R/o Village Sorla, Tah. Bemetara, Distt. Durg Chhattisgarh 13.3 - (D) Parmanand S/o Samliya Sahu Aged About 16 Years Through Guardian, Mother Umabai, Defendant No. 13 (A), Farmer And R/o Village Sorla, Tah. Bemetara, Distt. Durg Chhattisgarh 14 - Smt. Bhukhabai (Died) Through Legal Representatve As Per Honble Court Order Dated 22-10-2018 And 11-09-2025. 14.1 - Smt. Kalibai D/o Late Jhadudas Aged About 60 Years R/o Village Sorla, Tahsil Berla, Post Kusmi, Distt. Bemetara. 15 - State Of M.P. (Now Chhattisgarh) Through The Collector Durg, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh --- Respondents WITH SA No. 529 of 2003 1 - Murti Shri Mahavir Shwami Mandir Sorla, Tahsil Bemetara, District Durg, Sarvarakar Asanna Mishra Chandrika S/o Sukaram Das 2 - Chandrika Das (Died Through Lrs) As Per Honble Court Order Dated 10-10-2025. 2.1 - Jayanti Bai W/o Chandrika Das Vaishnav R/o Village- Sorla, Post- Kusmi, Tahsil - Berla, Distt- Bemetara C.G. 2.3 - Hem Prabha Vaishnav W/o Dinesh Das Vaishnav Aged About 60 Years R/o Shakti Nagar Near Vardhaman Nagar Rajnandgaon C.G. 2.4 - Santosh Kumar Vaishnav S/o Late Chandrika Das Vaishnav Aged About 58 Years R/o Village- Sorla, Post- Kusmi, Tahsil - Berla, Distt- Bemetara C.G. 2.5 - Sangita Vaishnav W/o Suresh Das Vaishnav Aged About 57 Years R/o Village Post And Tahsil- Abhanpur, Distt. Raipur C.G. 8 2.6 - Laxmi Vaishnav W/o Shiv Kumar Vaishnav Aged About 56 Years R/o Katalvahi, Post - Devkatta, Tahsil- Dongargarh, Distt. Rajnandgaon C.G. 2.7 - Rishi Kumar Vaishnav S/o Late Chandrika Das Vaishnav Aged About 52 Years R/o Village- Sorla, Post- Kusmi, Tahsil - Berla, Distt- Bemetara C.G. 2.8 - Ravindra Kumar Vaishnav S/o Late Chandrika Das Vaishnav Aged About 50 Years R/o Village- Sorla, Post- Kusmi, Tahsil - Berla, Distt- Bemetara C.G. 3 - Swarnprabha D/o Chandrika Das Vaishnav Aged About 62 Years R/o Village- Sorla, Post- Kusmi, Tahsil - Berla, Distt- Bemetara C.G. ---Appellants Versus 1 - Gulab Das (Died) Through Lrs As Per Hon'ble Court Order Dated 11.09.2025 1.1 - Durgabai Wd/o Damodar Das Aged About 50 Years R/o Vill. Bharari, Tah - Malhar, District - Bilaspur 2 - (A) Dhela Bai, Wd/o Firanta Sahu, Aged About 45 Years R/o Vill - Sorla, Tah - Bemetara, District - Durg. 2.1 - (B) Mishri, S/o Firanta Sahu, Aged About 22 Years R/o Vill - Sorla, Tah - Bemetara, District - Durg. 2.2 - (C) Dadhi, S/o Firanta, Aged About 19 Years R/o Vill - Sorla, Tah - Bemetara, District - Durg. 3 - State Of M.P. (Now Chhattisgarh) Through - The Collector, Durg (C.G.) --- Respondents For Appellants : Mr. H.B. Agrawal, Senior Advocate assisted by Ms. Swati Agrawal, Advocate For State : Mr. Pramod Shrivastava, Dy. G.A. 9 Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment On Board 6-11-2025 1) Heard on admission and formulation of substantial question of law. 2) These three appeals have been preferred by the appellants/ plaintiffs assailing the respective judgments and decrees passed by the learned Second Additional District Judge (F.T.C.), Bemetara, District – Durg in Civil Appeal No. 100-A/2002 ; Civil Appeal No. 75-A/2002 and Civil Appeal No. 108-A/2002 dated 14.5.2003 whereby the first appeals preferred by the appellants have been dismissed and the respective judgments and decrees passed by the learned Civil Judge Class I, Bemetara in Civil Suit No. 50-A/1987 ; Civil Suit No. 49/1987 and Civil Suit No. 52-A/1987 have been affirmed. 3) Facts of the cases in a nutshell are that appellants/ plaintiffs herein filed three suits [Civil Suit No. 50-A/1987 ; Civil Suit No. 49/1987 and Civil Suit No. 52-A/1987] before the learned trial Court seeking relief of declaration of title and possession over the subject property inter-alia on the ground that Lt. Raghuwar Sharan Das, who was the Malguzar of Village Sorla executed a will-deed on 19.6.1901 whereby 75% of the property was bequeathed in favor of Murti Shri Ramchandra Swami Mandir and remaining 25% property was given to his wife Kondi Bai on 10 condition that after her death, the property would go to Murti Shri Ramchandra Swami Mandir. Tukaram Das, who was father of Chandrika Das (plaintiff No. 2) and Gulab Das (defendant No. 1) was appointed as Sarvarakar to look after the affairs of the temple. Further, conditions were imposed that Tukaram Das would have authority to appoint Sarvarakar but he would have no right to alienate/ mortgage the property of temple or create charge. After death of Lt. Raghuwar Sharan Das, part of Khasra No. 64/4 ad-measuring 14.31 acres was recorded in the name of Murti Shri Mahavir Swami Mandir and remaining part was recorded in the name of Murti Shri Ramchandra Swami Mandir. Tukaram failed to nominate his successor and after his death, Chandrika Das (plaintiff No. 2) , Gulab Das (defendant No. 1) and their mother Anusuiya Bai became Sarvarakar. Gulab Das executed four-five sale-deeds in favor of different persons without making payment of consideration amount. Plaintiffs pleaded that mental condition of Gulab Das was not good and he had no authority of law to alienate the property recorded in the name of Murti Shri Ramchandra Swami Mandir. 4) In Civil Suit No. 50-A/1987, plaintiffs challenged the sale-deed dated 11.10.1971 executed by Gulab Das in favor of Onkar and Rohit pertaining to part of Khasra No. 191/1 ad-measuring 1.95 acres and sale-deed dated 11.10.1971 executed by Gulab Das in favor of Ramkrishna pertaining to part of Khasra No. 197/1 ad- measuring 2.00 acres. 11 5) In Civil Suit No. 49-A/1987, plaintiffs challenged the sale-deed dated 21.5.1971 executed by Gulab Das in favor of Shatrughan Lal pertaining to part of Khasra Nos. 1/2 and 2/1 ad-measuring 1.856 hectares ; sale-deed dated 9.6.1971 executed by Gulab Das in favor of Khorbahra pertaining to part of 64/1 ad-measuring 0.247 hectares ; sale-deed dated 9.6.1971 executed by Gulab Das in favor of Bisahin pertaining to part of Khasra No. 110/4 ad- measuring 0.20 hectare ; sale-deed dated 9.6.1971 executed by Gulab Das in favor of Aghnu pertaining to part of Khasra No. 110/4 ad-measuring 0.40 hectare ; sale-deed dated 9.6.1971 executed by Gulab Das in favor of Ramau pertaining to part of Khasra No. 110/4 ad-measuring 0.20 hectare and sale-deed dated 9.6.1971 executed by Gulab Das in favor of Janakram pertaining to Khasra No. 104 ad-measuring 0.12 hectare. 6) In Civil Suit No. 52-A/1987, plaintiffs challenged the sale-deed dated 9.6.1971 executed by Gulab Das in favor of Foolbati pertaining to Khasra No. 64/4 ad-measuring 0.40 hectare and sale-deed dated 19.3.1974 executed by Foolbati in favor of Mishrilal pertaining to Khasra No. 64/5 ad-measuring 0.40 hectare. 7) Defendant No. 1 filed written statement and refuted the allegation regarding Gulabdas’s mental incapacity. It is further pleaded that entire sale consideration was paid. Learned trial Court framed issues ; parties led evidence and thereafter, suits were dismissed. 12 Thereafter, plaintiffs preferred first appeals under Section 96 of CPC and the learned appellate Court dismissed the appeals. 8) In these appeals, appellants have moved separate applications under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC and filed following documents whose particulars are as under :- In SA No. 526 of 2003 [I.A. No. 2/2025] :- S.No. Particulars Document 1. Copy of Death Register of Page No. 77 of Village Sorla A/1 2. Copy of sale-deed dated 11.10.1971 by Gulab Das in favor of Onkar and Rohit A/2 3. Copy of sale-deed dated 11.10.1971 by Gulab Das to Ramkrishna A/3 4. Copy of Kistbandi Khatauni of Village Sorla A/4 5. Copy of renumbering Parcha of Village Sorla for year 1983-84 A/5 6. Copy of Revenue Survey Missal of Village Sorla A/6 7. Copy of Namantaran Panji A/7 8. Copy of Parivartan Suchi Bandobast A/8 9. Copy of Register Fauti of Village Sorla of year 1944 A/9 10. Copy of Chakbandi Missal of year 1931-32 A/10 11. Copy of Parivartan Suchi Bandobast A/11 12. Copy of judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court in Civil Suit No. 21-A/1974 A/12 13. Copy of Vasiyatnama dated 19.6.1901 A/13 14. Copy of Kistbandi B-1 A/14 In SA No. 527 of 2003 [I.A. No. 6/2025] :- S.No. Particulars Document 1. Copy of Death Register of Page No. 77 of Village Sorla A/1 2. Certified copy of registered sale-deed dated A/2 13 21.5.1971 by Gulab Das to Shatrughan Lal 3. Certified copy of registered sale-deed dated 9.6.1971 by Sarvarakar Shriram Chandra Swami, Khorbahra A/3 4. Certified copy of registered sale-deed dated 9.6.1971 by Sarvarakar Shriram, Khorbahra A/4 5. Certified copy of registered sale-deed dated 9.6.1971 by Sarvarakar Shriram, Bisahin A/5 6. Certified copy of registered sale-deed dated 9.6.1971 by Sarvarakar Shriram, Agnu A/6 7. Certified copy of registered sale-deed dated 9.6.1971 by Sarvarakar Shriram, Ramau A/7 8. Certified copy of registered sale-deed dated 9.6.1971 by Sarvarakar Shriram, Janakram A/8 9. Copy of Chakbandi Jamabandi of year 1931 A/9 10. Copy of judgment and decree passed by learned trial Court in Civil Suit No. 21-A/1974 A/10 11. Copy of Vasiyatnama dated 19.6.1901 A/11 12. Copy of Kistbandi B-1 A/12 13. Copy of Revenue Survey Missal for year 1983-84 A/13 14. Copy of renumbering Parcha for Village Sorla for year 1983-84 A/14 15. Copy of Fauti Namantaran dated 12.1.2016 A/15 16. Copy of field book of Village Sorla for year 1983-84 A/16 In SA No. 529 of 2003 [I.A. No. 1/2025] :- S.No. Particulars Document 1. Copy of Death Register of Page No. 77 of Village Sorla A/1 2. Copy of renumbering Parcha of year 1983-84 A/2 3. Copy of B-1 Kistbandi Khatauni of year 2014- 15 with map A/3 4. Copy of B-1 Kistbandi Khatauni for year 2016-17 with map A/4 5. Copy of Chakbandi/ Jamabandi of year 1931 A/5 6. Copy of Chakbandi/Missal of year 1931-32 A/6 7. Copy of record of rights of year 1954-55 for A/7 14 Village Sorla 8. Copy of Chakbandi/ Missal of Village Sorla for year 1931-32 A/8 9. Copy of sale-deed dated 9.6.1971 by Ramchandra Swami to Foolbati A/9 10. Copy of Sale-deed dated 19.3.1974 by Foolbati to Mishri Lal A/10 11. Copy of death certificate of Late Chandrika Das Vaishnav A 9) Learned Senior counsel appearing for the appellants submits Gulab Das lacked the mental capacity required to execute the sale deeds, allowing the purchasers to take advantage of his condition and Gulab Das had no authority of law to alienate the properties, therefore the sale-deeds executed by him are null and void and not binding on the plaintiffs. He further submits that learned appellate Court committed error of law in holding that the suits were barred by limitation and these appeals involve substantial question of law and may be admitted for hearing. 10) He contends that in order to establish their right, plaintiffs have moved separate applications under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC in these appeals as plaintiffs could not file these documents before the learned Courts below as they were advised by their counsel to do so. He further contends that these documents are necessary for just decision of these cases, therefore these documents may be admitted as additional evidence. 11) On the other hand, learned State counsel would oppose. 15 12) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records of all three civil suits with utmost circumspection. 13) Evidently, learned trial Court has recorded a specific finding in all three suits that plaintiffs failed to substantiate the allegation regarding mental status of Gulab Das and his addiction to cannabis. Learned trial Court further held that plaintiffs failed to establish the fact that the sale-deeds were executed without making payment of consideration taking benefit of mental status of Gulab Das. Learned trial Court also held that Gulab Das had right to alienate the properties and plaintiffs could not establish the fact that sale-deeds executed by him are null and void and the suits were barred by limitation. 14) Learned appellate Court affirmed the findings with regard to mental status of Gulab Das holding that plaintiffs failed to examine medical specialist to establish this fact and the suits were barred by limitation. Learned appellate Court further held that Chandrika Das (PW/1) has admitted in evidence that he himself purchased lands from Gulab Das and Chandrika Das also sold properties belonging to Murti Shri Ramchandra Swami Mandir. Learned appellate Court also held that the plaintiffs failed to establish the fact that the properties recorded in the name of Gulab Das were part of properties recorded in the name of Murti Shri Ramchandra Swami Mandir. Learned appellate Court also opined that the sale-deeds were executed on 12.5.1971, 16 17.5.1971 and 9.6.1971 whereas the suits seeking relief of declaration of title and possession were filed on 14.6.1983 and 28.10.1983, thus suits were barred by limitation as all the suits were presented after expiry of 12 years. 15) With regard to Civil Suit No. 22-A/1974 which was filed by plaintiffs and Anusuiya Bai against Ramkrishna and Kejuram seeking relief of declaration of title and possession, learned Courts below held that defendants were not party to that suit, therefore judgment passed in that suit would not be binding on them. It is further held that the plaintiffs filed the suits against different defendants wherein cause of action arose on different dates, thus suits are barred by the provisions of Order 2 Rule 3 of CPC on account of misjoinder of parties. 16) Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC reads as under:- 27. Production of additional evidence in Appellate Court. -(1) The parties to an appeal shall not be entitled to produce additional evidence, whether oral. or documentary, in the Appellate Court. But if- (a) the Court from whose decree the appeal is preferred has refused to a admit evidence which ought to have been admitted, or [(aa) the party seeking to produce additional evidence, establishes a notwithstanding the exercise of due diligence, be produced by him at the time when the decree appeal against was passed, or] (b) the Appellate Court requires any document to be produced or any witness to be examined to enable it to pronounce judgment, or for any other substantial cause, the Appellate Court may allow such evidence or document to be produced, or witness be examined. 17 (2) Wherever additional evidence is allowed to be produced by an Appellate Court, the Court shall record the reason for its admission. 17) The above-quoted provision allows the appellate Court to admit additional evidence in specific circumstances. Parties cannot adduce additional evidence as a matter of right. Such additional evidence can be adduced if it was not known to the parties at the time of court’s decree or if learned trial Court refused the admit it or appellants could not produce such evidence despite exercising due diligence before the learned trial Court. The appellant is required to plead relevancy of such document(s). 18) In the cases at hand, in the applications moved under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC, appellants have not demonstrated exceptional circumstances in accordance with the provisions of Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC. They failed to plead that evidence was not within their knowledge or the Courts below refused to admit it or the documents are relevant for just decision of these cases. 19) Bare reading of this provision would make it clear that plaintiffs have not fulfilled the requirements of Order 41 Ruler 27 of CPC as present is not a case where despite due diligence, evidence was not within the knowledge of the party. Further, the plaintiffs have not stated as to how these documents are relevant for just adjudication of these appeals. 18 20) In view of the discussion made hereinabove, the applications moved under Order 41 Ruler 27 of CPC in all these appeals stand rejected. 21) There is concurrent finding of facts recorded by the two courts below, therefore I do not find any substantial question of law involved in these appeals. Consequently, these appeals fail and are hereby dismissed at admission stage itself. 22) No order as to cost(s). Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE A j i n k y a