Mr. Deepak Maheshwari, J.

1. This Civil Second Appeal has been preferred on behalf of the plaintiff-appellant to assail the concurrent findings given by the learned trial Court in Civil Original Suit No. 267/1995 vide judgment dated 28th August, 2000 as upheld by the first Appellate Court under the judgment dated 31st January, 2015 passed in Civil Appeal No. 38/2013.

2. Succinctly stated the facts giving rise to appeal are that the plaintiff-appellant Chandra Singh filed a suit for injunction simpliciter against the defendants including Urban Improvement Trust, Udaipur (for short ‘UIT’), while claiming that Plot No. 12 admeasuring 85 x 45 yards having an area of 885 square yards existing in Aaraji No. 15 min in village Teeteradi was allotted to Chhagan Lal by Gram Panchayat Teeteradi vide Patta dated 28th July, 1956. Chhagan Lal remained in possession over the aforesaid plot uptil 6th February, 1980. Vide agreement to sell dated 6th February, 1980, he agreed to sale the said plot to plaintiff and handed over the possession thereof on the same day. It was alleged that the UIT, Udaipur, without any title and possession over the land, is threatening to evict the plaintiff and has allotted the said piece of land in the form of three plots bearing No. 746, 747 and 748 to other defendants No. 1 to 3.

3. After hearing both the sides, learned trial Court dismissed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 28th August, 2000 while coming to the conclusion that the plaintiff has not been able to prove that the patta, which is allegedly issued to the plaintiff is genuine; plaintiff does not derive any right, title or interest on the basis of simple agreement to sell, as no sale-deed has been executed in his favour as yet; the said piece of land was found to be allotted to UIT, Udaipur by the State Government; settled possession of the plaintiff was also not found proved and at the most, he was found to be a trespasser on the disputed piece of land.

4. The appeal preferred by the plaintiff against the said judgment was also dismissed by the learned first Appellate Court, after arriving at the concurrent findings, as regards the title and possession of the plaintiff over the disputed piece of land.

5. Heard learned counsel for the appellant as also for the respondents on admission of the second appeal and perused both the judgments impugned as also the ocular as well as documentary evidence available on record.

6. Prior to proceeding to decide this issue, it appears appropriate to decide the application filed by appellant under Order 41, Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Application Under Order 41, Rule 27 CPC:

7. Learned counsel for the appellant has filed an application under Order 41, Rule 27 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for taking two documents on record. One being, the order issued by the Office of Urban Improvement Trust, Udaipur wherein, certain schemes are mentioned to have been handed over to the Municipal Council, Udaipur for their up-keep and maintenance. Second one is the letter dated 5th March, 2014 issued by the Office of Nagar Nigam, Udaipur to one Devendra Kumar Mathur to deposit fees in respect of one plot situated in Hiran Magri Sector-11. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that these documents go to show that the respondent - UIT, Udaipur is not having any control over or interest in various Sectors of Hiran Magri wherein the disputed property situates.

8. Learned counsel for the respondents has opposed the application.

9. In my considered view, these two documents do not relate to the matter in dispute existing between the appellant and defendants. Letter dated 5th March, 2014 has been issued to one Devendra Kumar Mathur, who is not a party in this appeal. Another order issued by the Urban Improvement Trust, Udaipur handing over the maintenance part of some Sectors of Hiran Magri to Municipal Council, Udaipur indicates their internal arrangements so far as up-keep and maintenance is con