APHC010483272025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3329] THURSDAY,THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2380/2025 Between: 1. MANDAVA TULASAMMA, , W/O, VENKATA RAO, AGED 60 YEARS HINDU, LANDS, R/O. BASAVANNAPALEM VILLAGE, MADDIPADU MANDAL, NOW, R/O. MANGAMURI ROAD, ONGOLE TOWN ...PETITIONER AND 1. MARAM KOTIREDDY, S/O KOTIREDDY, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS 2. MARAM SUNKI REDDY, S/O. KOTIREDDY, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS 3. MARAM VENKATA LAKSHMAMMA, W/O. LATE NAGIREDDY, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS 4. MARAM ADI REDDY, S/O, LATE NAGIREDDY, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS 5. MARAM SIVA KOTIREDDY, S/O, LATE NAGIREDDY, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS 6. MARAM RAMANAMMA, S/O, LATE VENKATESWARA RREDDY, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS 7. MARAM SIVA RAMIREDDY, S/O, LATE VENKATESWARA RREDDY, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS 8. ERUVAKOTA KOTESWARI, W/O KOTIREDDY, D/O VENKATESWARA RREDDY, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS (OCCICULTIVATION, R/O, KOTHAPALEM VILLAGE, H/O. TALLURU 2 VILLAGE AND MANDAL PRAKASAM DISTRICT - 523111) ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India,praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed herein,the High Court may be pleased topleased to allow the revision petition by setting aside the order and decretal order dated 09.05.2025 in I.A. No. 514 of 2024 in AS. No. 5 of 2024 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge's Court, Darsi, and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. KISHORE BABU MANNE Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. The Court made the following: 3 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.2380 OF 2025 ORDER:- The Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India aggrieved by the order dated 09.05.2025 passed in I.A.No.514 of 2025 in A.S.No.5 of 2024 on the file of Hon’ble Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Darsi. 2. Pursuant to the orders of this Court, learned counsel for the petitioner filed memo of proof of service, wherein, it is stated that notice is served on the respondents, except respondent No.5 and 7. Notice issued against respondent Nos. 5 and 7 is returned with an endorsement “refused”. It is settled law that refusal of notice amounts to deemed service of notice. But none appears for the other respondents. 3. The petitioner herein is the plaintiff and the respondents herein are the defendants in the Suit. For the convenience of the court, the parties referred herein are as arrayed at the suit. 4. The brief facts of the case are as follows: 4(i) The petitioner herein/ plaintiff is the absolute owner and possessor of the agricultural land admeasuring to an extent of Ac.17.19 cents situated in Kothapalem Village, Talluru Mandal, Prakasam District having acquired the same through a partition among the family members. While so, in the year 2010, the plaintiff sold Ac.14.47 cents out of the land Ac.17.19 cents belonging to the plaintiff. 4 4(ii) The further case of the petitioner is that the defendants are the land owners adjacent to the petitioner’s land. In the absence of the plaintiff, the defendants encroached and grabbed Ac.2.72 cents of the petitioner’s land out of Ac17.19 cents. Aggrieved by the said action of the defendants, the plaintiff filed O.S.No.111 of 2015 on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Darsi seeking for declaration and recovery of the possession. As the suit was filed for declaration and recovery of the possession over an extent of Ac.2.72 cents of land, the plaintiff filed documents relating to the Ac.2.72 cents only. No documents were filed in respect of the land to an extent of Ac.14.47 cents. The trial Court dismissed the suit with primarily ground/ opinion that, in a suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession, the 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 setup by the defendants, would not be a ground to grant relief to the plaintiff. The plaintiff must prove definite title over the schedule property. It is well settled law, in the suit of declaration, if any weakness of the defendants is set up in their case, the same is not a strength to the plaintiff for granting of declaration of title. 4(iii) Assailing the dismissal order passed in O.S.No.111 of 2015, the plaintiff preferred an Appeal vide A.S.No.5/2024 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Court, Darsi. In the said appeal suit, the petitioner/ plaintiff filed I.A.No.514 of 2024 praying the appellate court to receive the additional documents/ evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC. But the appellate court, dismissed 5 the said I.A., aggrieved by the same, the petitioner herein preferred the present Revision Petition. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner/ plaintiff filed suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession of the suit schedule property. Admittedly, the suit is dismissed vide decree and judgment dated 19.09.2023 on the ground that the plaintiff was unable to substantiate that the entire extent of land is held by him in view of non-filing of registered sale deed under which he acquired the entire land admeasuring Ac.17.19 cents. He further submits that since the suit is filed for declaration of title and possession in respect of Ac.2.72 cents, so he filed documents to that effect regarding suit schedule property. But the trial Court dismissed the suit on the ground that the plaintiff did not substantiate in the absence of other documents what he was acquired and what portion of land was alienated and what portion of land is still remaining with him. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner herein assailing the judgment and decree dated 19.09.2023 in the suit, filed an appeal suit vide A.S.No.5 of 2024. In the said suit, he filed an I.A.No.514 of 2024 under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC seeking for production of additional evidence before the appellate court. The said I.A. was countered by the respondents. He further submits that the appellate Court erroneously dismissed the I.A without application of mind and without assigning any reasons for dismissal of the same which is contrary to the object and purpose of the order 41 Rule 27 of CPC. 6 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sugandhi (dead) by Lrs. & Anr. Vs. P.Rajkumar rep. by his Power Agent Imam Oli1 , wherein, the Hon’ble Apex Court time and again directed the court below that the procedural & technical hurdles shall not be allowed to come in the way before the Court while pending substantial justice. Therefore, the Court should take lenient view for production of additional documents before the appellate Court. In view of the same, the order of the appellate Court dated 09.05.2025 passed in I.A.No.514 of 2025 in A.S.No.5 of 2024 is liable to be set aside. 8. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. No representation for the respondents. 9. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and on perusal of the material placed on record, it appears that the petitioner is unable to satisfy the lower appellate Court and the conditions enumerated under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC read as follows: 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 1 Civil Appeal No.3427 of 2020 Arising out of SLP(C)No.16491 of 2019 7 1[(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) Wherever additional evidence is allowed to be produced by an Appellate Court, the Court shall record the reason for its admission. 10. On a perusal of Order XLI Rule 27 of the CPC, the reasons explained in the affidavit filed in support of the petition do not strictly satisfy the conditions laid down thereunder. The judgment relied upon by the learned counsel contains only general observations and does not lay down any specific principle applicable to the facts of the present case. However, it is settled law that the lower appellate court is the final fact-finding court and that the proceedings before it are a continuation of the original suit proceedings. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that, due to procedural lapses either on the part of the petitioner or his counsel before the trial Court, he was unable to produce the relevant documents, necessitating their production at this stage to challenge the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court and to substantiate his title and possession over the suit schedule property, merits consideration. 8 11. As observed above, since the lower appellate court is the final fact- finding court and the appellate proceedings are a continuation of the suit proceedings, even for determination of the issues involved, the additional documents filed by the petitioner are necessary to enable the Court to render a proper judgment and to do substantial justice between the parties. The said principle was laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sanjay Kumar Singh V, The State of Jharkhand2 , wherein, the relevant portion of the said judgment is extracted hereunder: “It is true that the general principle is that the appellate court should not travel outside the record of the lower court and cannot take any evidence in appeal. However, as an exception, Order 41 Rule 27 CPC enables the appellate court to take additional evidence in exceptional circumstances. It may also be true that the appellate court may permit additional evidence if the conditions laid down in this Rule are found to exist and the parties are not entitled, as of right, to the admission of such evidence. However, at the same time, where the additional evidence sought to be adduced removes the cloud of doubt over the case and the evidence has a direct and important bearing on the main issue in the suit and interest of justice clearly renders it imperative that it may be allowed to be permitted on record, such application may be allowed. Even, one of the circumstances in which the production of additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC by the appellate court is to be considered is, whether or not the appellate court requires the additional evidence so as to enable it to pronouncement judgment or for any other substantial cause of like nature. As observed and held by this Court in the case of A. Andisamy 2 Civil Appeal No.1760 of 2022, 10th march 2022 9 Chettiar v. A. Subburaj Chettiar, reported in (2015) 17 SCC 713, the admissibility of additional evidence does not depend upon the relevancy to the issue on hand, or on the fact, whether the applicant had an opportunity for adducing such evidence at an earlier stage or not, but it depends upon whether or not the appellate court requires the evidence sought to be adduced to enable it to pronounce judgment or for any other substantial cause. It is further observed that the true test, therefore is, whether the appellate court is able to pronounce judgment on the materials before it without taking into consideration the additional evidence sought to be adduced. Applying the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid decision to the facts of the case on hand, we are of the opinion that while considering the application for additional evidence, the High Court has not at all adverted to the aforesaid relevant consideration, i.e., whether the additional evidence sought to be adduced would have a direct bearing on pronouncing the judgment or for any other substantial cause. As observed hereinabove, except sale deed 29.12.1987, which as such was rejected, there was no other material available on record to arrive at a fair market value of the acquired land. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the High Court ought to have allowed the application for additional evidence. However, at the same time, even after permitting to adduce the additional evidence, the applicant has to prove the existence, authenticity and genuineness of the documents including contents thereof, in accordance with law and for the aforesaid purpose, the matter is to be remanded to the Reference Court. In view of the above discussion and for the reasons stated above, the present appeal is partly allowed. Order passed by the High Court rejecting IA No. 1384/2019 for adducing additional evidence to bring on record the documents 10 mentioned in the said application is hereby quashed and set aside. IA No. 1384/2019 filed before the High Court for adducing additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC is hereby allowed. The appellant herein is permitted to bring on record the documents mentioned in IA No. 1384/2019 as additional evidence. However, as observed and held by this Court in the case of Uttaradi Mutt v. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt, (2018) 10 SCC 484, allowing the application filed under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC does not lead to the result that the additional documents/additional evidence can be straightway exhibited rather, the applicant would have to not only prove the existence, authenticity and genuineness of the said documents but also the contents thereof, in accordance with law. It is observed that thus the documents which are permitted to be brought on record as additional evidence have to be proved by the appellant before the Reference Court, in accordance with law and only thereafter and after proving the existence, authenticity and genuineness of the said documents including contents thereof, the same can be taken into consideration by the Reference Court. For the aforesaid purpose, the matter is remanded to the Reference Court. Land Acquisition Case No. 36/1989 is ordered to be restored on the file of the learned Reference Court – Subordinate Judge- II, Daltonganj. Consequently, the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court dismissing the appeal is also hereby quashed and set aside. However, it is observed and held that we have not expressed anything on merits of the documents permitted to be brought on record as additional evidence and it would be for the Reference Court to deal with the same in accordance with law and on its own merits and after the same are proved by the appellant, as observed hereinabove. The Reference Court is directed to 11 decide the reference case No. 36/1989 afresh, in accordance with law.” 12. In view of the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court as well as the reasons stated above, the lower appellate court is hereby directed to consider and receive the additional evidence filed by the petitioner which is necessary and relevant to determine and to resolve the issue before the lower appellate court. 13. Accordingly, the civil revision petition is allowed, with the following directions: i) the order dated order dated 09.05.2025 passed in I.A.No.514 of 2025 in A.S.No.5 of 2024 on the file of Hon’ble Senior Civil Judge’s Court is hereby set aside. ii) The lower appellate court is directed to receive the additional evidence filed by the petitioner and to decide the issue without any influence by the observation made this Court and proceed further, in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________________ VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA, J Date:29.01.2026 BSP 12 63 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA Civil Revision Petition NO.2380 OF 2025 DATED:29.01.2026 Date:29.01.2026 BSP