The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to follow the proper procedure for admitting additional evidence and establishing a direct link between the additional document produced and the document already on record in accordance with Order 41 Rule 27 and Order 41 Rule 28 of the Civil Procedure Code.

JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: This Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code, against the Judgment and Decree dated 30.08.1995 passed in A.S.No. 58 of 1994 on the file of the Subordinate Judge Court, Poonamallee, which reversed the Judgment and Decree dated 29.04.1994 passed in O.S. No. 1918 of 1993 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Tambaram.)

1. The plaintiff in O.S.No. 1918 of 1993 on the file of the District Munsif Court at Tambaram is the appellant herein. The said suit was decreed by Judgment dated 29.04.1994. Thereafter, the defendants filed A.S.No. 58 of 1994 which came up for consideration before the Sub Court at Poonamallee. By Judgment dated 30.08.1995, the appeal suit was allowed. This has necessitated the plaintiff to file the present Second Appeal.

2. The Second Appeal along with batch of other Second Appeals had been admitted on 27.11.1997 on the following two substantial questions of law:-

"i) Whether the First Appellate Court was right and justified in law in admitting and relying on the additional evidence without affording an opportunity to the appellants to rebut and that too without examining whether the requirements of Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure were satisfied?

ii) Whether the First Appellate Court was right and justified in law in reversing the Judgment and decree of the trial Court without drawing proper inference even from the proved facts."

3. The facts in brief are that the plaintiff claimed that he is the absolute owner of Plot No. 59 at Viduthalai Nagar, in S.No. 79 of Kovilambakkam Village and S.Nos. 377 part 381 part, 385 part, 386 part, 388 part, 389, 4a, 4b, 390 and 402/1 part of No. Kulathur, Madras in the layout duly approved by the Director of Town and Country Planning in L.P.D.M./D.T & C.P.No.12/75. It was claimed that the plaintiff had purchased the said plot from P.R. Udauabanu by registered sale deed bearing Document No. 2767 of 1988 dated 25.08.1988. The said sale deed had been produced as Ex.A-1 during the course of trial. After the purchase of the plot, patta had been obtained by the plaintiff in Patta No. 3031 from the Tahsildar, Saidapet Taluk. It was claimed that the fifth defendant, who is the fifth respondent herein, claiming to act on behalf of the first to fourth defendants / first to fourth respondents herein had attempted to interfere with possession and therefore claiming a right, title and interest over the property and consequent right to protect possession. The suit had been filed seeking necessary relief of permanent injunction.

4. The defendants in their written statement however contended that the vendor of the plaintiff is not the true owner of the property. The first to fourth defendants claimed that they are the owners of a larger area of property and they had inherited the same from their parents, Thiruvengada Naicker and Alangarammal, who died on 06.06.1971 and 15.06.1985 respectively. The first to fourth defendants claimed that they are in possession and enjoyment of the property. The said defendants further claimed that they had never interfered with the possession of the plaintiff and it was therefore stated that there was no cause of action for the suit. It was also stated that therefore, the suit for injunction is not maintainable and would not lie.

5. By Judgment dated 29.04.1994, the District Munsif, Tambaram however granted the relief as sought in the plaint and decreed the suit.

6. The defendants then filed A.S.No. 58 of 1994 before Sub Court at Poonamallee. It must be mentioned that during the course of trial, the appellants in the First Appeal had also filed an application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC seeking to produce one further document which they claimed was a continuous running sheet of Ex.B-1 which was already marked. The trial Court had rejected Ex. B-1 which was a copy of survey settlement register holding it did not bear the signature or seal of the concerned Official. The trial Court gave a definite finding that