JUDGMENT :

1. With consent of the parties the matter is heard finally at the stage of admission.

2. The Appellant herein has taken exception to order dated 01/11/2018 under Order 41 Rule 27 of the CPC and judgment and decree dated 26/03/2019 passed by the learned District Judge-3, Solapur in R.C.A. No.276 of 2017.

3. Heard learned counsel for the Appellant and Respondents. Perused the records and considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the respective parties.

4. Respondent No.1 (hereinafter referred to as the Plaintiff) had filed a suit for permanent injunction in respect of land admeasuring 156.06 sq. mts. from Survey No.8426/A/1 final plot No.159+160/330. The Plaintiff claimed that his grandfather Ladappa Kurne was an employee of Jam Mill, the original owner of the suit property. In the year 1930, the owner of the land allotted an open plot of land to Ladappa for accommodation purpose and that Ladappa constructed four rooms, toilet and bathroom in the said plot and started residing therein. The father of the plaintiff and later the Plaintiff continued residing in the said premises without any obstruction and interference from anyone.

5. The Defendant No.1 has purchased the suit property from Defendant No.4 vide deed of sale dated 14/10/2013. The Plaintiff claims that the clause in the sale deed whereunder the possession of the suit property is stated to have been handed over to the Defendant No.1 is false as the suit property is in his actual possession since the time of his grandfather. The Plaintiff filed the suit for permanent injunction apprehending dispossession by the Defendant on the basis of the said sale deed.

6. The Defendant No.1 claims to have purchased the property from Defendant Nos.2 to 4, the successors of Vithal Mane, the original owner of the suit property. The Defendant No.1 denied that the Plaintiff was put in possession of the suit property and claimed that the Plaintiff has encroached in the suit property and constructed a tin shed in an open plot of the suit property and is in illegal occupation of the same.

7. It is the case of Defendant Nos.2 to 4 that Ambubai Mali had purchased the property from the Agent of Jam Mill. The property exchanged several hands and ultimately it was purchased by Defendant No.1 from Defendant Nos.2 to 4, who are the successor of the previous purchaser - Vitthal Mane. These Defendants claim that they have transferred the title as well as possession of the suit property in favour of Defendant No.1.

8. The Trial Court framed issues and after considering the evidence adduced by the respective parties held that Plaintiff has failed to prove that he is in settled possession of house No.48/1/31 and /or the suit property and hence dismissed the suit.

9. The Plaintiff challenged the judgment and decree in appeal No.276 of 2017. During the pendency of the appeal, Plaintiff filed an application under Order 41 Rule 27 for production of additional evidence. The Appellate Court by order dated 01/11/2018 partly allowed the said application and thereby permitted the Plaintiff to produce the documents, which were filed along with the list at Exhibit-31 and further held that the prayer for leading oral evidence relating to the said documents would be considered at the stage of final hearing.

10. The appeal finally came to be decided by the impugned judgment dated 26/03/2018. Learned Judge held that the Defendant No.1 has admitted that the Plaintiff is in possession of the suit property but since the Defendants have raised a plea of encroachment, the question for determination is whether the plaintiff is in settled possession of the suit property. Learned Judge further observed that :- “the additional evidence is necessary to decide the real dispute between the parties especially in view of identity of suit property additional evidence is necessary to consider the identity of suit property and the property in which the plaintiff is residing i.e. Gavali Vasti. Whether Laxmi Peth is pa