JUDGMENT :

This appeal is filed by the defendants in OS No.174/2012 challenging the Judgment and Decree passed by the Trial Court in OS No.174/2012 and the First Appellate Court in RA No.116/2015, by which both the Courts below held that the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of perpetual injunction in respect of the suit schedule property.

2. The plaintiff claimed that the suit property was gifted to her, by her father and that she had been in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. She alleged that the defendants attempted to interfere with her possession of the suit schedule property. Thus, she filed a suit for perpetual injunction.

3. Defendant No.3 contested the suit claiming that the suit property did not exist, as it was acquired by Government for formation of sites under the Ashraya Scheme. The other defendants did not contest the proceedings, though they had entered appearance. Based on these rival contentions, the Trial Court framed the following issues:-

(i) Whether the plaintiff proves her possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property as on the date of the suit?

(ii) Whether the plaintiff proves the alleged illegal interference by defendants?

(iii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for reliefs as sought for?

(iv) What order and decree?

4. Plaintiff was examined as PW.1 and she marked document as Exhibits P1 to P4, while defendant No.3 did not lead any evidence, though he filed written statement. He did not even enter the witness box. In view of the undisputed facts, the Trial Court decreed the suit and granted perpetual injunction.

5. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid Judgment and Decree, the defendants No.1 to 7 filed Regular Appeal No.116/2015. During the course of this appeal, an Application in IA No.8/2015 was filed to summon the documents related to acquisition of the suit property in terms of the notification bearing No.LAQ-HSL.11/1987-88 dated 13.04.1988. This application was allowed and the Assistant Commissioner of Kollegal Sub-division was directed to submit the documents related to the aforesaid notification.

6. The defendants also filed an application under Order XLI Rule 27 of CPC before the First Appellate Court. He placed on record the full documents such as Hakku Patras that were issued to the defendants by the Assistant Commissioner after formation of the lay-out in the suit properties. The First Appellate Court held that the defendants had not explained the reason for not producing these documents before the Trial Court and that the defendants had not explained the delay in producing them before the First Appellate Court. The First Appellate Court, therefore, rejected the application filed by the defendants and consequently dismissed the appeal filed by the defendants.

7. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid Judgment and Decree of the Courts below, the defendants have filed this appeal.

8. It is relevant to note that there are profound evidence which indicate that the suit properties were acquired in terms of notification dated 20.04.1980, which was challenged before this court in Writ Petition No.10180/1990. The writ petition was allowed and the acquisition was quashed, but liberty was reserved to the State Government to proceed with the acquisition from the stage of Preliminary Notification.

9. The defendants contend that, later further acquisition proceedings were held and the orders were passed, and possession of the suit properties were taken over and the defendants were allotted sites which were formed in the suit properties. It is no doubt true that the defendants have not satisfactorily explained the reason for not contesting the proceedings before the Trial Court and also in not producing the documents, but they have attempted to produce the documents before the First Appellate Court. However, having regard to the fact that substantive rights are crystallised in favour of the defendants, the First Appellate Court ought to have allowed the application and must have followed cours