The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of following procedural rules for admitting additional evidence in the appellate court and ensuring that both parties have the opportunity to present evidence and cross-examine witnesses.

The plaintiff in the trial court is the appellant in the second appeal. The suit was filed for a permanent injunction against the defendants from interfering with the plaintiffs possession of the property which is to an extent of 459 sq. metres of house site with thatched shed and mamool pathway rights comprised in R.S.F.No.1044/3 in Pallapalayam Village, Perundurai Taluk, Erode District.

2. The claim of the plaintiff was based on the patta issued by the Special Tahsildar on 31.05.1993 which was marked as Ex.A1. It was further the case of the plaintiff that the defendants who have nothing to the do with property have attempted to interfere and demolished the thatched shed which has resulted in filing the above said suit.

3. On the other hand, the defendants in the written statement have categorically stated that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the property situated in R.S.F.No.1044/3 as per the Patta dated 31.093. However, in the later part of the written statement, the defendants have stated that property comprised in R.S.F.No.1044/3 was subsequently divided into 5 parts and separate pattas were issued to five persons. It is the case of the defendants that originally the property belonged to one Jeevanandam who is the father of defendants 2 and 3 and grand father of the first defendant and the plaintiff. The said Jeevanandam has five sons namely Themothan who is the father of the plaintiff, Joseph the father of the first defendant, Thomas the second defendant, Devasagayam the third defendant and Jayaraj. After the division of the said property, S.F.No.1044/3 was allotted to the plaintiff and his brother namely Anbalagan, S.F.No.1044/3B was allotted to the first defendants father Joseph, S.F.No.1044/3C was allotted to the second defendant, S.F.No.1044/3D was allotted to the third defendant and Jayaraj was allotted the property situated in S.F.No.1044/3A.

4. According to the defendants, the suit property allotted to the plaintiff and his brother Anbalagan comprised in S.F.No.1044/3 is still vacant land and the plaintiff is actually living as a tenant under the first defendants house on a monthly rent of Rs.300/-in the house allotted to the first defendant comprised in S.No.1044/3B. Since the plaintiff failed to pay the rent consistently, due to fear of his being vacated through process of law, the suit is filed.

5. It is seen that the plaintiff has filed the patta issued in his name marked as Ex.A1 dated 35. 93. On the other hand, the defendants side has not filed any documents and on appreciation of the entire factual position, the trial Court has given a finding that the plaintiff is in possession of the property and has decreed the suit. In fact the trial court has also stated that the defendants have not filed any documents.

6. Aggrieved over the said judgment of the trial court, the defendants have filed the first appeal before the appellate Court. Along with the first appeal the defendants have also filed I.A.No.19/2005 for receipt of additional documents with the contention that while it is true that the plaintiff was given patta under Ex.A1 dated 31.05.93 and the said patta was subsequently cancelled by the revenue authorities on the application filed by the defendants and the patta has been granted in favour of the defendants and they were not filed in the trial court since they were not able to trace out. In spite of the opposition to the said application, the First appellate Court has allowed the said application filed under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC. Thereafter, the first appellate Court has taken up the appeal and reversed the judgment of the trial Court on the basis that the patta issued in favour of the plaintiff under Ex.A1 dated 35. 93 has been cancelled subsequently, as it is seen in the additional documents. In view of the same, the first appellate Court has come to the conclusion that the plaintiff is not in possession and allowed the appeal of the defendants and set aside the judgment and