The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of Order XLI Rule 27 of the CPC, the admissibility of documents as public documents under Section 74 of the Indian Evidence Act, and the misinterpretation of the law of adverse possession.

JUDGMENT :

This regular second appeal has been filed under order XLII Rule 1 read with Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (“CPC” hereinafter) challenging the decree and judgment in A.S. No.307 of 2004 dated 15.12.2017 on the files of the Court of the Additional District Judge-II, Mavelikkara arose from decree and judgment in O.S. No.479 of 2001 dated 30.07.2004 on the files of the Munsiff Court, Mavelikara. The appellants herein are defendants 1 to 5 and the respondents are legal representatives of the original plaintiff Bhanumathiamma and other defendants. Later, additional respondents 13 and 14 got impleaded as the legal heirs of the 4th respondent and additional respondents 15 to 16 got impleaded as the legal heirs of the 1st respondent.

2. Heard both sides in detail and perused lower court records.

3. As per order dated 22.03.2018, my learned predecessor admitted this appeal by formulating the following substantial questions of law :

1. Can additional documents produced in an appeal under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short, CPC) which is disputed by the other party, be accepted in evidence without proof of those documents ?

2. When additional documents are produced in appeal under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC, without satisfying any of the grounds enumerated under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC, can such additional documents be accepted by the appellate court?

4. On hearing both sides, one more substantial question of law arose for consideration and the same is also formulated as under:-

3. Is it correct to hold that in view of the decision of the Apex Court in Hemaji Waghaji jat v Bhilkhabhai Khengarbhai Harijan reported in 2008 KHC 4892, the law of adverse possession now exists is not recognized by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India?

5. In this matter, the suit was originally filed by Bhanumathiamma claiming 1/3rd share in the plaint schedule property and also to declare that Gift Deed No. 54/1991, Sale Deed No.56/1991 and Sale Deed No.25/1994 are not binding on the plaintiff. According to the plaintiff, the property was originally held by Bhageerathiamma, the mother of the plaintiff and the plaint schedule property is succeeded by the plaintiff and her siblings, viz; Nandakumar and Vijayamma. The 1st defendant is Vijayamma and defendants 2 to 5 are her children. Defendants 6 to 8 are the legal heirs of deceased Nandakumar, who is the brother of the plaintiff and the 1st defendant. Defendants 9 and 10 are the subsequent purchasers of the plaint schedule property from defendants 1, 3 to 5. Other defendants are the children of the plaintiff.

6. Defendants 1 to 5 filed joint written statement and denied the partible nature of the property. The 1st defendant denied plaintiff as her sister and daughter of Bhageerathiamma. Accordingly, the 1st defendant raised contention that the plaintiff could not succeed in the matter of partition.

7. The 10th defendant, who purchased the property from defendants 1, 3 to 5 filed written statement admitting that the plaint scheduled property was originally owned by Bhagareethiamma and contending that the plaintiff, the 1st defendant and Nandakumar are the sharers to the property by birth. Similarly defendants 3 to 5 are also entitled to get a share. Right of defendants 11 to 15 was also admitted. 10th defendant, who purchased 6 cents of property form part of the plaint schedule property from defendants 1, 3 to 5, as per sale deed No.25/1994 dated 04.01.1994, raised plea of adverse possession over the same.

8. Earlier the suit was tried by the trial court and the matter reached upto this Court vide RSA No. 34/2011 and this Court remanded the matter to the first Appellate Court for considering appeal afresh, since it was reported that, at the time when the First Appellate Court delivered the judgment, Bhanumathiamma died, on 30.04.2010. The present judgment in A.S. No.307/2004 dated 15.12.2017, is the judgment delivered after remanding of this matter by this Court.

9. The trial court raise