The judgment in O.S. No. 11 of 1979 was crucial in determining the rights of the parties and the admissibility of additional evidence under Order 41, Rule 27, C.P.C.

1. The defendant, who suffered a decree for permanent injunction, concurrently, is the appellant originally, on whose death, his legal representatives have been brought on record as appellants 2 to 5.

2. The respondents 1 and 2, claiming that they are the owners of the suit properties, have filed the Suit for permanent injunction. It is their case that the suit properties belong to them, as joint properties, in which the defendant, by name K. Kallan, has no interest and this fact is decided by the Court in O.S.Mo.11 of 1979 on the file of the sub-Court, Ooty, which reached finality. It is their further case, pursuant to the preliminary decree granted in that case, in the final decree proceedings, the suit properties were allotted to the share of the plaintiffs. However, the original appellant/defendant, who has no right over the suit properties, taking advantage of his position in the politics, is attempting to disturb their possession and in this way, a Suit came to be filed, seeking protection, by way of permanent injunction.

3. The original appellant/sole defendant, opposed the claim of plaintiffs, inter alia, contending that he had purchased the suit properties from the original owner under a registered sale deed dated 27.2.1974; that from the said date onwards, taking possession of the suit properties, he continues to be in possession and therefore, there is no chance for him to disturb the alleged possession of the plaintiffs and if at all, the plaintiffs e entitled only for partition and certainly not for injunction.

4. On the above basis, the parties went on trial before the, Trial Coup where the first plaintiff was examined as P.W.1, seeking aid from Exs.A-1 to A-4. On behalf of the appellant/defendant, no oral or documentary evidence has been produced.

5. The learned trial Judge, evaluating the materials and scanning the effect of the judgment in O.S. No. 11 of 1979, came to the conclusion that as per Ex.A-1 the judgment in O.S. No. 11 of 1979, the defendants predecessors-in-interest ceased to have any interest in the suit properties and therefore, the defendant is not entitled to resist the Suit. It is further held, pursuant to the decree in O.S. No. 11 of 1979, the suit properties are allotted to the share of the plaintiffs and therefore, they are entitled to be in possession and that possession should be protected, by the grant of injunction.

6. The defendant, though had not contested the case, by producing any document or examining any witness, preferred an Appeal before the District Court, Nilgiris in A.S.No.17 of 1993. It seems, when the First appeal was pending, Ex.B.1 was marked, probably, invoking Order 41, Rule 27, C.P.C. The learned District Judge, considering once again, as did by the Trial Court, the effect of the judgment in O.S.No.11 of 1979, as well as the subsequent document produced by the defendant, felt, no case has been made out by the appellant/defendant, calling for interference in the findings of the Trial Court. Therefore, it dismissed the Appeal, confirming the decree and judgment of the Trial Court, as per the Judgment dated 31.10.1994, which is impugned in this Second Appeal.

7. This Court, while admitting the Second Appeal, had formulated the only Substantial Question of Law as follows:

"Whether it is open to the Court below in dealing with a Suit for injunction to record a finding that the defendant has no right, title or interest in the suit property on the basis of Ex.A-1?"

8. Heard Mr. R.M. Krishna Raju, the learned counsel for the appellants Mr. V. Nicholas, the learned counsel for the respondents.

9. In this Court, the appellant, once again invoking Order 41, Rule 27, C.P.C., has filed certain documents, for the reception of the same as additional evidence, in C.M.P. No. 1440 of 1995, as if these documents are absolutely necessary to prove his right, which he had failed to produce before the Courts below, because of the unavoidable situation prevailed then, beyond his control. Th