The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of allowing the parties to produce additional evidence to prove their claims, emphasizing the principle of substantial justice.

JUDGMENT :

1. The present appeal is filed by the plaintiffs under Sec. 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ("CPC" for short) challenging the judgment and decree passed in R.A.No.35/2007 dtd. 1/6/2012 by the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Ron ("the First Appellate Court" for short), which confirmed the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.228/1997 dtd. 30/8/2007 by the Court of the Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.), Ron ("the Trial Court" for short).

2. Brief facts of the case are as follows: It is contending that the appellants-plaintiffs are the owners of land bearing R.S.No.287/2B+2A/1, measuring 1 acre 25 guntas situated within the limits of Unachageri village of Ron Taluk.

3. It is stated that respondent Nos.1 and 2- defendant Nos.1 and 2 have constructed the Inspection Bungalow on the suit land, without there being any acquisition of the said land. Therefore, the appellants-plaintiffs are contending that the construction of Inspection Bungalow on the suit land is illegal and amounts to encroach upon the property of the appellants-plaintiffs. Therefore, with these contentions the appellants-plaintiffs have filed the suit seeking for declaration and possession.

4. The Trial Court on considering the oral and documentary evidence on record has dismissed the suit of the appellant-plaintiffs on the ground that, the appellants-plaintiffs have failed to prove their title and ownership over the suit land by producing evidences.

5. The judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court in dismissing the suit is also confirmed by the First Appellate Court in the regular appeal by endorsing the view taken by the Trial Court that, the appellants-plaintiffs have not produced documentary evidence to show that, they are the owners and having title over the suit land. Therefore regular appeal filed by the appellants-plaintiffs is dismissed.

6. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by both the Courts below in dismissing the claim of the appellants-plaintiffs, the appellants-plaintiffs have preferred the present regular second appeal.

7. In this appeal, the appellants-plaintiffs have filed I.A.No.1/2021 under Order XLI Rule 27 read with Sec. 151 of CPC for production of documentary evidence in the form of additional evidence and produced 12 documents contending that these are the documents produced by way of additional evidence and before the Trial Court as well as before the First Appellate Court, those documents were not available to the appellants-plaintiffs, even though, with due diligence and making best efforts in tracing out these documents and soon after tracing out these documents, the appellants-plaintiffs have filed this application to produce the same before this Court in the form of additional evidence by invoking provision under Order XLI Rule 27 read with Sec. 151 of CPC.

8. Therefore, learned counsel appearing for the appellants-plaintiffs submitted that, the appellants-plaintiffs are the illiterate rustic villagers and they are not well versed with the law and legal procedures and that cannot be made ground to reject their claim of ownership over the land and now they obtained the documents proving their title. Therefore, prays to remand the case to the Trial Court for fresh consideration.

9. On the other hand, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondents-defendants (State) submitted that both the Courts below are correct in dismissing the claim of the appellants-plaintiffs as the appellants-plaintiffs have not produced any documentary evidence showing their ownership and title over the suit land. Therefore in the absence of evidence, the appellants-plaintiffs are not entitled for relief of declaration. Accordingly, what is held by both the Courts below is, proper and correct and accordingly he supported the judgment and decree passed by Both the Courts below. Hence, he prays to dismiss the appeal.

10. Having heard the arguments canvassed by both the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the following su