IMPORTANT POINTS
It is not proper to dismiss a first appeal in limine.
When the Judge has to support his observation in 50 pages, obviously there are arguable points.
First appellate court is duty bound to appreciate the entire evidence.
Application under Order XLI, Rule 27 can be allowed subject to Court’s satisfaction about justifiability of reason for not filing such evidence at the trial stage and relevancy and material nature of the additional evidence.

JUDGMENT :

Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.

(1) This appeal is filed against the final judgment and order dated 24.06.2003 of the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in R.F.A. No. 933 of 2002 whereby the High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant herein, in consequence, affirmed the judgment and decree dated 11.12.2001 passed by the Ist Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore in O.S. No. 5588 of 1976.

(2) In order to appreciate the controversy involved in the appeal, which lies in a narrow compass, it is necessary to state few relevant facts.

(3) The appellant-Union of India (Divisional Railway Manager, Bangalore) is the plaintiff whereas the respondents are the defendants in the suit.

(4) The dispute in this case relates to a plot of land situated near Krishnarajapuram Railway Station, which is around 14 KMs away from Bangalore city-details of which are mentioned in the plaint (herein after referred to as "the suit land”).

(5) The appellant filed the suit bearing Civil Suit No. 5588/1976 against the respondents in the Court of Ist Additional City Civil and Session Judge, Bangalore for a declaration that they (appellant) are the owners of the suit land and that the respondents whose ancestral claims to have interest in the suit land have no right, title and interest in the suit land. The appellant in order to prove their title over the suit land filed certain documents.

(6) The respondents filed their written statements and while denying the appellant’s title asserted their own title over the suit land through their predecessors. According to them, their predecessors acquired occupancy rights under the State Tenancy Laws over the suit land in revenue proceedings. It was contended that by virtue of these proceedings, their ancestral acquired superior title over the suit land to the exclusion of every one including the appellant and the same devolved on them after the death of their predecessor in title. The respondents also raised a plea that the suit is barred by limitation. The Trial Court on the basis of the pleading framed issues arising in the civil suit. Parties adduced evidence.

(7) Therefore, the dispute that essentially arose between the parties was who is the owner of the suit land-the appellant (Union of India-Railways) or the respondents’ predecessor in title?

(8) The Trial Court vide judgment/decree dated 11.12.2001 dismissed the suit on two grounds. It was held that the suit is barred by limitation. It was further held that the plaintiff (the appellant) failed to prove their title over the suit land for want of adequate evidence whereas the defendants (respondents) were able to prove their title over the suit land.

(9) The appellant, felt aggrieved, filed first appeal before the High Court. In the appeal, the appellant filed an application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as “the Code”) and sought permission to adduce additional evidence in support of their case. The additional evidence inter alia consisted of documents issued by the State Land Revenue department in relation to the suit land. According to the appellant, these documents were relevant and material for deciding the ownership issue and if properly examined along with the documents already filed in the suit, would establish the appellant's title over the suit land to the exclusion of every one including the respondents. It was further alleged that the appellant was not able to file these documents in the Trial Court because firstly, these documents were old; Secondly, the appellants came to know of these documents after the decision was rendered in the civil suit; and lastly, since the documents were traced recently with great difficulty and being in the nature of public documents, the appellant be allowed to file them so as to enable the Court to properly decide the issue of ownership in relation to the suit land.

(10) The learned Single Judge, by impugned judgment running into 50 pages, dismiss