The appellate Court should ensure the reliability, veracity, and relevance of additional evidence produced under Order XLI Rule 27 of CPC by following the options available under Order XLI Rules 28 and 29 of CPC.

JUDGMENT :

B. M. Shyam Prasad, J.

This appeal is by the defendants in O.S.No.1842/2005 on the file of the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru. The respondents have filed the suit for ejectment of defendant Nos.1 to 3 from three shop premises each constructed in an area measuring East to West 10 feet and North to South 15 feet in Sy.No.94 of Upparahalli village, Kasaba Hobli, Hoskote Taluk and for a consequential relief of direction to the appellants to hand over the possession. The trial Court has dismissed the suit by its judgment dated 27.06.2011. However, the appeal filed by the respondents in R.A.No.285/2011 on the file of the VIII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru is allowed by the judgment dated 01.09.2018 decreeing the respondents' suit and directing the appellants to hand over the vacant possession of the three premises referred to above.

2. Smt. Hanumakka, under whom the respondents claim title to the subject properties was granted an extent of six guntas in Sy.No.94 of Upparahalli village, Kasaba Hobli, Hoskote Taluk. The respondents contend that the appellants trespassed into a portion of this land along its southern boundary and constructed the premises in this property in Sy.No.94. On the other hand, the appellants contend that they were each allotted an extent measuring 10x15 feet in Sy.No.4 of Upparahalli village, Kasaba Hobli, Hoskote Taluk under the beneficiary scheme. They constructed shop premise in their respective portions way back in the year 1996-1997. The trial Court, on appreciation of the evidence on record, concluded that the respondents were not able to establish that the boundaries of the six guntas of land in Sy.No.94 were fixed after the due process pursuant to the grant in her favour, and without such exercise being undertaken, the respondents could not claim title thereto or seek ejectment of the appellants.

3. In the first appeal, the respondents have filed three applications under Order XLI Rule 27 of CPC, and another application under Order XXVI Rule 10(A) of CPC. The applications under Order XLI Rule 27 of CPC are filed to produce a purported list of beneficiaries who have been granted lands in the year 1996-1997, an Endorsement issued by the Municipal Council Office affirming that the appellants' name do not figure in such beneficiary list and the survey records to establish that Sy.No.94 was reassigned with Sy.No.4. The appellants filed objections to some of these applications only. The appellate Court has allowed these applications, and took up the appeal for consideration on main without giving opportunity to the appellants to cross examine the respondents on the genuineness and relevance of these documents, or to lead rebuttal evidence. The appellate Court has concluded that the respondents have sought for leave to produce public records and as such, the additional documents could be received in evidence without further process which would be necessary after the applications under Order XLI Rule 27 of CPC are allowed. The application filed under Order XXVI Rule 10(A) of CPC is rejected, and there is no grievance about the rejection of such application.

4. The appellate Court, on the appreciation of the material on record, including the documents received as additional evidence under Order XLI Rule 27 of CPC, has decreed the respondents' suit setting aside the trial Court's judgment.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellate Court, upon allowing the applications under Order XLI Rule 27 of CPC, in the absence of any consensus to mark the documents produced as additional evidence, should have had recourse to options under Order XLI Rule 28 of CPC or Order XLI Rule 29 of CPC. The appellate Court's failure to have recourse to the options available under these provisions, has resulted in miscarriage of justice inasmuch as the appellants have been denied opportunity to test the veracity as well as the relevance of these do