APHC010321511998 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI THURSDAY,THE NINTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENUTHURUMALLI GOPALA KRISHNA RAO I.A.No.1 of 2019 in/and FIRST APPEAL NO: 2402 OF 1998 Between: 1. Donka Gurunadha Rao (Died), S/o. Late Appanna retd. Railway Driver R/at Kasibugga Palasa (M). 2. Smt. Savithri, W/o late Donka Gurunadha Rao Household R/o Kasibugga Srikakulam Dist. ...Appellants/Defendant AND 1. Donka Janardhna Rao died per LRs 23, S/o. late Appanna retd.flight Engineer Indian Air Force r/at Kasibugga Palasa (M) Srikakulam 2. Donka Rama Krishna Rao, S/o. late Appanna business r/at Kasibugga Srikakulam 3. Smt Donka Nirmala Devi, W/o. D.Rama Krishna Rao housewife r/at Kasibugga Srikakulam (RRs 2&3 are brought on record as LRs of deceased respondent ...Respondents/Plaintiff Appeal against the Judgement and decree dt: 27/11/1998 in OS NO.23/96 on the file of the court of the Senior Civil Judge, Sompeta, Srikakulam Dist. IA NO: 1 OF 1998(CMP 27356 OF 1998 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay the operation of the Judgement and decree dt: 27/11/1998 in OS NO.23/96 on the file of the court of the Senior Civil Judge, Sompeta, Srikakulam Dist. including stay of vacating the petitioner appellant from the suit schedule premises bearing Door No.15/35 situated in the southern row of Tilak nagar, Kasibugga town, plalsa Mandal, Srikakulam Dist. pending disposal of the main appeal IA NO: 1 OF 1999(CMP 27226 OF 1999 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to vacate the interim stay passed in CMP NO.27356/98 in AS NO.2402/98 dt: 29/12/1998 IA NO: 1 OF 2003(CMP 18534 OF 2003 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to bring the petitioner ask legal resdpresentative of the deceased respondent No.2 on record in the above appeal and permit the petitioner to participate in the enquiry to be conducted by the Senior Civil Judge, Sompeta, Srikakulam dist. and to pass such other order or orders. IA NO: 2 OF 2003(CMP 76906 OF 2003 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased IA NO: 3 OF 2003(CMP 76907 OF 2003 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased IA NO: 4 OF 2003(CMP 76908 OF 2003 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased IA NO: 1 OF 2004(CMP 447 OF 2004 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased To extend the time 4 months 1-7-2003 in A.S.NO.2402/98 on the file of the High Court for period of 4 months to dispose of O.S.NO.23/96 on the file of Senior Civil Judge,Sompeta. IA NO: 2 OF 2004(ASMP 11959 OF 2004 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased To bring them on record in A.SNO.2402/1998 as legal representatives of the deceased appellant in the above appeal and to pass. IA NO: 3 OF 2004(XOBJ 23068 OF 2004 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased IA NO: 4 OF 2004(XOBJ 23069 OF 2004 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased IA NO: 5 OF 2004(CMP 31352 OF 2004 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased IA NO: 6 OF 2004(CMP 31353 OF 2004 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased IA NO: 7 OF 2004(ASMP 41475 OF 2004 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased IA NO: 8 OF 2004(ASMP 41476 OF 2004 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased IA NO: 1 OF 2019 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to receive the letter dt. 01.11.1995 as additional evidence to prove my case and remand the matter to trial court and to pass Counsel for the Petitioners: K SUBRAHMANYAM Counsel for the Respondents: THOTA RAMAKOTESWARA RAO The Court made the following: Judgment: This appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure is filed by the appellant/defendant challenging the judgment and decree, dated 27-11-1998, in O.S.No.23 of 1996 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Sompeta, Srikakulam District. The respondents 1 to 3 herein are the original plaintiff and his legal representatives in the said suit. 2. The 1st respondent/plaintiff filed the suit for declaration that he has title to and possession of the plaint schedule building and for grant of mandatory injunction directing the defendant to vacate the plaint schedule house with his family and for costs of the suit. 3. Both the parties in the appeal suit will be referred to as they are arrayed before the trial Court. 4. The brief averments of the plaint in O.S.No.23 of 1996 are as under: (a) It is pleaded that the suit schedule property is a terraced building along with another site totaling 20 cubits width and 70 cubits length purchased by the plaintiff’s father Appanna under two separate registered sale deeds dated 29-7-1961 for Rs.800/- and 14-10-1961 for Rs.200/- from the vendor. Appanna died in 1964 leaving behind his wife and four sons, including the plaintiff and the defendant. The plaintiff was the only earning member of the family and brought up his brothers. Around 1972, the entire site was divided into two shares and the plaintiff was allotted 15 cubits where the plaint schedule property is situated and the remaining 15 cubits was allotted to the plaintiff’s younger brothers Venkatarao and Ramakrishna on the east of the plaint schedule building. The defendant was not given any share in the site as he never settled at Kasibugga but decided to settle at Bhilai where he was working. (b) It is further pleaded that later, the plaintiff constructed a terraced building in the site allotted to him with his own income and efforts and he was working as Flight Engineer, Indian Air Force. After completion of construction of the building, the plaintiff’s mother and younger brother Ramakrishna were residing in the suit schedule house with the permission of plaintiff. In 1985, the plaintiff retired from service and came to Kasibugga, by which time his mother died and Ramakrishna constructed a house in his own site and shifted to the new house. The plaintiff as a bachelor is in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the house, known to one and all. The defendant is estopped from denying the title of the plaintiff. Hence, the plaintiff was constrained to file the suit for declaration and consequential relief of mandatory injunction against the defendant. 5. The defendant filed his written statement denying the contents of the plaint and further contended as under: The plaintiff adopted the defendant’s daughter, by name Rajeswari and adoption ceremony was also performed and adopted daughter was given in marriage. The plaintiff executed an adoption deed on 17-01-1973. The defendant is in continuous and uninterrupted possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule site openly and with a hostile title and he perfected his title by way of adverse possession. After retirement, the defendant paid Rs.1,70,000/- to the plaintiff and the plaintiff purchased a site and constructed a poultry. The plaintiff obtained documents by playing fraud. The defendant is living in the house as his own. The plaintiff has no title or interest over the suit schedule property. The suit is barred by time and hence it may be dismissed with costs. 6. Based on the above pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues: (1) Whether the plaintiff has got title to the suit schedule land and whether he is entitled for relief as prayed for ? and (2) To what relief ? 7. During the course of trial in the trial Court, on behalf of the plaintiff, P.Ws.1 to 5 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-4 were marked. On behalf of the defendant, D.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.B-1 to B-22 were marked. 8. After completion of the trial and on hearing the arguments of both sides, the trial Court decreed the suit vide its judgment, dated 27-11-1998, against which the present appeal suit is preferred by the appellant/defendant in the suit questioning the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. 9. During the pendency of appeal suit, the sole respondent/plaintiff died and his son and daughter-in-law were brought on record as respondents 2 and 3 as legal representatives of deceased 1st respondent vide Court order dated 01-4-2004 in C.M.P.Nos.2003/2003 and 18534/2003, respectively. So also, the sole appellant/defendant died and his wife was brought on record as the 2nd appellant as legal representative of deceased 1st appellant vide Court order dated 27-7-2004 in A.S.M.P.No.11959 of 2004. 10. The application in I.A.No.1 of 2019 is filed by the petitioners/legal representatives of appellant with a prayer to receive the letter dated 01-11-1995 as additional evidence to prove their case and remand the matter to trial Court. 11. Heard Sri K. Subrahmanyam, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri Thota Rama Koteswara Rao, learned counsel for the respondents. 12. The learned counsel for appellants would contend that the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court is contrary to the evidence on record and probabilities of the case and the same is illegal. He would further contend that the trial Court erroneously believed the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 5 and decreed the suit. He would further contend that the trial Court erred in giving much importance to Exs.A-1 and A-2 in giving finding as to title to the suit property. He would further contend that the trial Court erred in ordering eviction of the appellant/defendant from out of his own suit schedule house and he would further contend that the appeal may be allowed by setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Judge. 13. Per contra, the learned counsel for respondents would contend that on appreciation of the entire evidence on record, the learned trial Judge rightly decreed the suit and there is no need to interfere with the finding given by the learned trial Judge and he prayed for dismissal of the first appeal filed by the appellants. 14. Now, the points for determination are: (1) Whether the respondent/plaintiff is having absolute right and title over the plaint schedule property ? (2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of the possession of the plaint schedule property as prayed for ? (3) Whether the trial Court committed any error in decreeing the suit and whether the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court needs any interference ? and (4) To what extent ? 15. Point No.1: Whether the respondent/plaintiff is having absolute right and title over the plaint schedule property ? It is the specific case of the plaintiff that his father purchased total extent of site of the plaint schedule property and appurtenant site to it under Exs.A-3 and A-4, dated 29-7-1961 and 04-10-1961 respectively and he died in the year 1964 leaving his wife and four sons including the plaintiff and the defendant. The plaintiff further pleaded that the entire site was divided into two shares and plaint schedule site was allotted to the plaintiff and the remaining same extent of site was allotted to other two brothers Venkatarao and Ramakrishna i.e. plaintiff’s younger brothers and the defendant was not given any share as he was settled at Bhilai where he is working. 16. It is undisputed by the defendant that the plaintiff was a bachelor and he used to work as a Flight Engineer in Indian Air Force and the plaintiff worked for a considerable period of service i.e. 35 years of service and retired in the year 1985. It is the specific case of the plaintiff that with his own earnings, he constructed a terraced building and the building was electrified and the name of the plaintiff was mutated in the Panchayat and Electricity records. The same is well supported by Exs.A-1 and A-2. 17. It is the specific case of the defendant that the site in which the plaintiff constructed a house fell to the share of the defendant in the year 1970 in family arrangement. The learned counsel for appellant would contend that the plaintiff expressed his desire to receive money instead of sharing the site for which the plaintiff was given Rs.30,000/-. In order to prove the said defence, no evidence was produced by the appellant/defendant. He would further contend that with his own income, the defendant constructed a house and started living from 31-8-1990. Admittedly, the suit was filed in the year 1996. No oral or documentary evidence was produced by the appellant to show that he is in possession of the plaint schedule house. The appellant did not file any documentary evidence to show that his name was mutated in Panchayat records. On the other hand, the plaintiff filed documentary evidence viz., electricity payment charges in respect of the suit schedule property and also Panchayat tax to show the possession of the plaintiff in the plaint schedule property. 18. It is admitted case of both the parties that the plaint schedule property vacant site and other adjacent property was originally purchased by the father of plaintiff and defendant under two registered sale deeds dated 29-7-1961 and 04-10-1961 and he died in the year 1964 intestate by leaving his wife and four sons including the plaintiff. The said oral contention of the plaintiff is well supported by Exs.A-1 and A-2. The present suit is filed for seeking relief of declaration of title and also recovery of possession of the plaint schedule property. 19. In the case of Union of India v. Vasavi Cooperative Housing Society Limited1, the Apex Court held as follows: “In a suit for declaration of title, burden always lies on the plaintiff to make out and establish a clear case for granting such a declaration and the weakness, if any, of the case set up by the defendants would not be a ground to grant relief to the plaintiff. The legal position, therefore, is clear that the plaintiff in a suit for declaration of title and possession could succeed only on the strength of its own title and that could be done only by adducing sufficient evidence to discharge the onus on it, irrespective of the question whether the defendants have proved their case or not. We are of the view that even if the title set up by the defendants is found against, in the absence of establishment of plaintiff’s own title, plaintiff must be non-suited.” In the case of Sajana Granites, Madras v. Manduva Srinivasa Rao2, the composite High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad held as follows: 1 (2014) 2 SCC 269 2 2001 SCC OnLine AP 666 “The Supreme Court in M.P. Athanastus case (supra), M.M. Catholices v. Polo Avira case (supra) and this Court in C. Audilakshmamma case (supra) held that plaintiff in a suit for declaration of title, and for recovery of possession, can succeed only on the strength of his own title and that it is not obligatory on the defendants to plead and prove the possible defects in the plaintiffs title and so if the plaintiff fails to establish his title, even if the defendant fails to establish his own title, plaintiff must be non suited. In this case since appellants are seeking declaration of their title to the suit property they have to establish their title; and cannot expect relief on the basis of the weakness of the case of respondents 1 and 2, or on the basis that the evidence adduced by respondents 1 and 2 does not establish their title to the suit property.” In the case of K. Venkatasubba Reddy v. Bairagi Ramaiah (died) by L.Rs.3, the composite High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad held as follows: “A Division Bench of this Court also in Chakicherla Adilakshmamma v. Almakuru Rama Rao and Ors,- (AIR 1973 AP 149) relying on the judgment of the Supreme Court in AIR 1954 SC 526 (cited supra) held that "in a suit for ejectment, the plaintiff is liable to be nonsuited, if he fails to establish his own title irrespective of the question whether the defendants have proved their case or not." The law laid down by the Supreme Court and also by the Division Bench of this Court in the ejectment suits is also applicable to the suits for declaration of title. Thus, the plaintiff must succeed by establishing his own title, by adducing satisfactory evidence and he cannot succeed on the weakness of the defendant's case. 20. In the case of Brahma Nand Puri v. Neki Puri (since deceased) represented by Mathra Puri4, the Apex Court held as follows: “The plaintiff’s suit being one for ejectment he has to succeed or fail on the title that he establishes and if he cannot succeed on the strength of his title his suit 3 1999 (1) APLJ 416 (HC) 4 AIR 1965 SC 1506 must fail notwithstanding that the defendant in possession has no title to the property, assuming learned counsel is right in that submission”. In the case of Jagdish Narain v. Nawab Sai Ahmed Khan5, the Privy Council held as follows: “In a suit in ejectment the plaintiffs can succeed only on the strength of their own title, and there is no obligation upon the defendants to plead possible defects in the plaintiffs’ title which might manifest themselves when the title is disclosed. It is sufficient that in the written statement the defendants deny the plaintiffs’ title, and under this plea, they can avail themselves of any defect which such title discloses.” In the case of A. Ramloo v. G. Sreeramachandra Murthy 6, the composite High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad held as follows: In a ruling reported in Moran Mar Basselios Catheolicos v. Most Rev. Mar Poulose Athanasius (AIR 1954 SC 526), it has been held as under: "That the plaintiff in ejectment suit must succeed on the strength of his own title. This can be done by adducing sufficient evidence to discharge the onus that is on him irrespective of whether the defendant has proved his case or not. A mere destruction of the defendants title, in the absence of establishment of his own title carries the plaintiff nowhere." In the case on hand, the right and title of the plaintiff’s father is undisputed by both the parties to the suit. It is the specific case of the plaintiff that after the death of his father in the year 1964, the entire site was divided into two shares and the plaint schedule site was allotted to him and the remaining same extent of site was allotted to both the younger brothers Venkata Rao and Rama Krishna and the defendant was not given any share as he settled at Bhilai for the purpose of doing his job. It is also the specific case of the plaintiff that he worked as a Flight Engineer in Indian Air Force, with his hard earnings only he constructed the house. It is undisputed by the appellants that the plaintiff worked as a Flight Engineer for a period of 5 1945 SCC OnLine PC 56 6 1999 SCC OnLine AP 80 35 years. Moreover, Ex.A-1 proceedings issued by the Gram Panchayat dated 21-02-1972 along with other evidence on record establish that the plaintiff constructed a dwelling house in the year 1972. As per the own admissions of the defendant also, the plaintiff constructed the plaint schedule house. P.W.2 is plaintiff’s another brother. He also supported about the construction of house by the plaintiff. P.W.3 is plaintiff’s another brother. He also supported the case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff constructed the suit schedule house with his own money. The oral evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3 supported that the plaintiff constructed a house in the year 1972 and his right and title was not at all questioned by the defendant. 21. It is the specific case of the plaintiff that after retirement, the defendant came to him and requested to give him shelter for some time until he searched for a house, the same is well supported by other two younger brothers of plaintiff and defendant i.e. P.Ws.2 and 3. Therefore, the possession of the defendant in the plaint schedule property itself is a permissive possession. As per the evidence of D.W.1, he retired from service on 31-8-1990 and the suit for declaration of title and possession was filed by the plaintiff in the year 1996. As per the own admissions of defendant, the plaintiff got constructed a house in the plaint schedule site. 22. The defendant i.e. D.W.1 admitted in his evidence itself that the plaintiff worked as a Flight Engineer and he was in service for a period of 35 years and retired from service in the year 1985. He further deposed that he worked as a driver in Indian Railways for about 10 years and he retired from service on 31-8-1990, himself and his elder brother P.W.1, who are in services, purchased a vacant site with their own earnings in the name of their father in the year 1962. Admittedly, no evidence was placed by the defendant to show that he spent his earnings for construction of the house in the year 1962. Furthermore, there was a positive evidence on record to show that the plaintiff worked for a period of 35 years as a Flight Engineer and retired in the year 1985. Another admission made by the defendant in his evidence in cross-examination is that he gave total amount of Rs.20,000/- to P.W.1 for construction of the suit schedule house, and himself and P.W.1 got constructed the said house. Admittedly, no evidence was placed by the defendant to show that he spent amount for the construction of house by the plaintiff in the plaint schedule property. Furthermore, another admission made by the defendant is that he has not enquired the plaintiff as to what are the expenses incurred by him for construction of house in the plaint schedule property. He further admitted that after retirement in the year 1985, the plaintiff come down and settled in the said house and his other two younger brothers also constructed houses adjoining their house and one of his younger brothers Rama Krishna sold away his house. 23. D.W.2 admitted in his evidence in cross-examination itself that she came to the Court to give evidence against her adoptive father/plaintiff, who performed her marriage. She further admitted that house was got constructed by her adopted father/plaintiff for about 3 or 4 years by staying at Kasibugga and during the period of construction of the said house, the plaintiff was working as a Flight Engineer. The above admissions of defendant/appellant’s own daughter themselves go to show that the plaintiff constructed the house in the plaint schedule property with his own earnings. 24. The defendant relied on the evidence of D.W.3. As per his evidence, his family and the families of plaintiff and defendant in the suit are unconnected with family affairs of each other and he pleaded ignorance about the expenditure incurred for construction of the house and when the construction of house was completed by the plaintiff. 25. As seen from the oral and documentary evidence produced by the plaintiff and on considering the evidence of D.Ws.1 to 3, it is quite clear that the plaintiff constructed a house in the plaint schedule property with his own hard earnings while he was working as a Flight Engineer for a period of 35 years and he applied for permission for construction of house to the Gram Panchayat, the same is also evident as seen from the documentary evidence produced by him. It is also evident that the plaintiff applied for electricity service connection to the plaint schedule house and he is paying electricity consumption charges to the Electricity Department. Therefore, the plaintiff discharged his burden by producing cogent evidence to show that he is having right and title in the plaint schedule property. Admittedly, the title of plaintiff’s father in the plaint schedule site is undisputed by the appellants. 26. The oral and documentary evidence produced by the plaintiff and defendant clearly goes to show that the house was constructed a way back in the year 1972 by the plaintiff and after retirement in the year 1985, the plaintiff settled down in the plaint schedule house. Even as per the admissions of defendant, he retired from service in Indian Railways on 31-8-1990 whereas the suit is filed in the year 1996 for seeking relief of declaration of title and recovery of possession. The admissions of defendant’s own daughter also clearly go to show that the plaintiff constructed the plaint schedule house i.e. way back in the year 1972 while he was working as a Flight Engineer with his own hard earnings itself and she supported the case of the plaintiff. Even as per the own admissions of the defendant, the house was constructed by the plaintiff. The appellant/defendant would contend that he made some contribution for construction of the said house. To that extent, no evidence was produced by the defendant. Therefore, for the aforesaid reasons, the plaintiff proved his right and title in the plaint schedule property through Exs.A-1 to A-4. On the other hand, the defendant failed to prove that he paid an amount of Rs.20,000/- to the plaintiff for construction of a house. In view of the aforesaid reasons, this Court held that the plaintiff proved his right and title in the plaint schedule property, consequently he is entitled for possession. The learned trial Judge, by giving cogent reasons, decreed the suit by ordering the defendant to evict from the plaint schedule property and also deliver possession to the plaintiff. In view of the above reasons, the plaintiff is having absolute right and title over the plaint schedule property. Accordingly, point No.1 is answered. 27. Point No.2: Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of the possession of the plaint schedule property as prayed for ? In view of the aforesaid findings on point No.1 that the plaintiff is having absolute right and title over the plaint schedule property, consequently the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of possession of the plaint schedule property from the defendant. Accordingly, point No.2 is answered. 28. Point No.3: Whether the trial Court committed any error in decreeing the suit and whether the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court needs any interference ? In view of my aforesaid findings on points 1 and 2, the trial Court is justified in decreeing the suit that the plaintiff is having absolute right and title over the plaint schedule property and the plaintiff is also entitled to recovery of possession over the plaint schedule property. I.A.No.1 of 2019: 29. The application under I.A.No.1 of 2019 is filed by the petitioners/ appellants in the year 2019 in the first appeal filed by the defendant. Admittedly, the first appeal is filed in the year 1998, the suit was instituted before the Senior Civil Judge’s Court at Sompeta in the year 1996 and the learned trial Judge decreed the suit on contest by both the parties vide its judgment dated 27-11-1998, against which a first appeal has been filed by the appellant/defendant in the year 1998. Admittedly, the original letter filed by the appellant/defendant in the year 2019 said to have been addressed by the plaintiff to the defendant is not at all filed by the appellants. The appellants filed a Xerox copy of the unsigned letter to receive as additional evidence, that too with a delay of more than 20 years from the date of institution of the suit. Therefore, it is for the petitioner to explain the delay of more than 20 years in filing the said copy of the alleged unsigned letter to be received as additional evidence which is sought by the petitioners in I.A.No.1 of 2019. 30. Order XLI, Rule 27 of Civil Procedure Code 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 admit evidence which ought to have been admitted, or (aa) the party seeking to produce additional evidence, establishes that notwithstanding the exercise of due diligence, such evidence was not within his knowledge or could not, after the exercise of due diligence, be produced by him at the time when the decree appealed 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 to be examined. (2) Whenever additional evidence is allowed to be produced, by an Appellate Court, the court shall record the reason for its admission.” 31. The general principle is that the appellate Court should not travel outside the record of the trial Court and cannot take any evidence in appeal. However, as an exception under Order XLI, Rule 27 of Civil Procedure Code, enable the appellate Court to take evidence in exceptional circumstances only. The proviso under Order XLI, Rule 27 C.P.C. permits the party to produce additional evidence before the appellate Court, provided it has to be come under the ambit of Order XLI, Rule 27 of Civil Procedure Code. 32. The document to be received as additional evidence is Xerox copy of the alleged unsigned letter said to have been addressed to the defendant dated 01-11-1995. As stated supra, the suit was instituted by the plaintiff in the year 1996. The original defendant is alive during the pendency of the suit. His son filed the present application in first appeal proceedings. The alleged copy of letter dated 01-11-1995 is much prior to the institution of the suit, the suit was filed in the year 1996 and the appeal is filed in the year 1998. Moreover, the appellant has not filed the original letter which is alleged to have been addressed to the defendant by the plaintiff. The petitioner failed to explain the said inordinate delay of more than 20 years in filing the present application to receive the said copy of the alleged letter addressed by the plaintiff to the defendant as additional evidence. Another important point is that any evidence, which is received as additional evidence in the appellate stage, cannot be looked into without any pleading in the original record. It is also well settled that in the absence of pleading, evidence if any produced by the parties, cannot be considered. It is also equally well settled that no party should be permitted to travel beyond its pleading and that all necessary and material facts shall be pleaded by a party in support of the case set up by it. For the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any grounds to allow the present application. Hence, the application is dismissed. 33. In the result, I.A.No.1 of 2019 and A.S.No.2402 of 1998 are dismissed, confirming the judgment and decree, dated 27-11-1998, in O.S.No.23 of 1996 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Sompeta. Pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, each party do bear their own costs in the appeal suit. REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. Donka Janardhna Rao died per LRs 23, S/o. late Appanna retd.flight Engineer Indian Air Force r/at Kasibugga Palasa (M) Srikakulam 2. Donka Rama Krishna Rao, S/o. late Appanna business r/at Kasibugga Srikakulam 3. Smt Donka Nirmala Devi, W/o. D.Rama Krishna Rao housewife r/at Kasibugga Srikakulam (RRs 2&3 are brought on record as LRs of deceased respondent 4. One CC to SRI. K SUBRAHMANYAM Advocate [OPUC] 5. One CC to SRI. THOTA RAMAKOTESWARA RAO Advocate [OPUC] 6. One CC to SRI. . Advocate [OPUC] 7. Two CD Copies HIGH COURT VGKRJ DATED:09/10/2025 ORDER I.A.No.1 of 2019 in/and AS NO. 2402 OF 1998