Andava Tulasamma vs Aram Kotireddy - 2026 Supreme(Online)(AP) 3250

Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order 41 Rule 27 - Production of additional evidence in Appellate Court - The lower appellate court is the final fact-finding court and the proceedings before it are a continuation of the original suit proceedings. Where additional evidence is necessary to enable the court to render a proper judgment and do substantial justice, it may be allowed even if strictly defined conditions are not met, provided the evidence has a direct and important bearing on the main issue. (Paras 10, 11)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner filed a suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession of agricultural land. The trial court dismissed the suit on the ground that the plaintiff failed to substantiate the entire extent of land held via registered sale deeds. In the subsequent appeal, the petitioner filed an application under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC to produce additional evidence, which was dismissed by the lower appellate court.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the lower appellate court as the final fact-finding court should consider additional documents if they are necessary to determine the issues and resolve the cloud of doubt over the case to ensure substantial justice.

Issues: Whether the lower appellate court was justified in dismissing the application for production of additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC.

Ratio Decidendi: Following the principle that appellate proceedings are a continuation of the suit and that the true test for admitting additional evidence is whether the appellate court requires such evidence to pronounce judgment or for any other substantial cause, the court held that procedural lapses should not obstruct the delivery of substantial justice.

Result: Civil revision petition allowed.

Legal Category Hierarchy

1. Petitioner argued that appellate court erred in dismissing application for additional evidence despite being continuation of suit and necessary for justice. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 )

2. Revision allowed; order dismissing application set aside; appellate court directed to receive additional evidence and decide afresh in accordance with law. (Para 12 , 13 )

3. Under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC, can additional evidence be admitted even if conditions (a) or (aa) are not strictly satisfied?

Yes, if the appellate court requires the evidence to enable it to pronounce judgment or for any other substantial cause, as the true test is whether the appellate court can pronounce judgment without it. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 )

4. What is the significance of the appellate court being the final fact-finding court in applications for additional evidence?

The appellate court should take a lenient view to allow additional evidence to do substantial justice, as proceedings are a continuation of the suit and evidence may be necessary for proper adjudication. (Para 10 , 11 )

5. What is the test for allowing additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27(1)(b) according to the Supreme Court in Sanjay Kumar Singh?

The true test is whether the appellate court is able to pronounce judgment on the materials before it without taking into consideration the additional evidence sought to be adduced. (Para 11 )

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.2380 OF 2025

ORDER:-

The Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of

India aggrieved by the order dated 09.05.2025 passed in I.A.No.514 of 2025 in

A.S.No.5 of 2024 on the file of Hon’ble Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Darsi.

2. Pursuant to the orders of this Court, learned counsel for the petitioner

filed memo of proof of service, wherein, it is stated that notice is served on the

respondents, except respondent No.5 and 7. Notice issued against

respondent Nos. 5 and 7 is returned with an endorsement “refused”. It is

settled law that refusal of notice amounts to deemed service of notice. But

none appears for the other respondents.

3. The petitioner herein is the plaintiff and the respondents herein are the

defendants in the Suit. For the convenience of the court, the parties referred

herein are as arrayed at the suit.

4. The brief facts of the case are as follows:

4(i) The petitioner herein/ plaintiff is the absolute owner and possessor of

the agricultural land admeasuring to an extent of Ac.17.19 cents situated in

Kothapalem Village, Talluru Mandal, Prakasam District having acquired the

same through a partition among the family members. While so, in the year

2010, the plaintiff sold Ac.14.47 cents out of the land Ac.17.19 cents

belonging to the plaintiff.

2026:APHC:7479

4(ii) The further case of the petitioner is that the defendants are the land

owners adjacent to the petitioner’s land. In the absence of the plaintiff, the

defendants encroached and grabbed Ac.2.72 cents of the petitioner’s land out

of Ac17.19 cents. Aggrieved by the said action of the defendants, the plaintiff

filed O.S.No.111 of 2015 on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Darsi seeking for

declaration and recovery of the possession. As the suit was filed for

declaration and recovery of the possession over an extent of Ac.2.72 cents of

land, the plaintiff filed documents relating to the Ac.2.72 cents only. No

documents were filed in respect of the land to an extent of Ac.14.47 cents.

The trial Court dismissed the suit with primarily ground/ opinion that, in a suit

for declaration of title and recovery of possession, the burden always lies on

the plaintiff, to make out and establish a clear case for granting such a

declaration, and the weakness, if any of the case setup by the defendants,

would not be a ground to grant relief to the plaintiff. The plaintiff must prove

definite title over the schedule property. It is well settled law, in the suit of

declaration, if any weakness of the defendants is set up in their case, the

same is not a strength to the plaintiff for granting of declaration of title.

4(iii) Assailing the dismissal order passed in O.S.No.111 of 2015, the plaintiff

preferred an Appeal vide A.S.No.5/2024 on the file of Senior Civil Judge,

Court, Darsi. In the said appeal suit, the petitioner/ plaintiff filed I.A.No.514 of

2024 praying the appellate court to receive the additional documents/

evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC. But the appellate court, dismissed

2026:APHC:7479

the said I.A., aggrieved by the same, the petitioner herein preferred the

present Revision Petition.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner/ plaintiff

filed suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession of the suit schedule

property. Admittedly, the suit is dismissed vide decree and judgment dated

19.09.2023 on the ground that the plaintiff was unable to substantiate that the

entire extent of land is held by him in view of non-filing of registered sale deed

under which he acquired the entire land admeasuring Ac.17.19 cents. He

further submits that since the suit is filed for declaration of title and possession

in respect of Ac.2.72 cents, so he filed documents to that effect regarding suit

schedule property. But the trial Court dismissed the suit on the ground that the

plaintiff did not substantiate in the absence of other documents what he was

acquired and what portion of land was alienated an

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(AP) 3250

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Venkateswarlu Nimmagadda, J
Andava Tulasamma – Appellant
Versus
Aram Kotireddy – Respondent
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2380/2025

The lower appellate court, as the final fact-finding court, can admit additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC if such evidence is necessary to pronounce judgment or for substantial cause, ensuring that procedural technicalities do not hinder substantial justice.

Legal Category Hierarchy

Table of Contents

3. Under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC, can additional evidence be admitted even if conditions (a) or (aa) are not strictly satisfied?

4. What is the significance of the appellate court being the final fact-finding court in applications for additional evidence?

5. What is the test for allowing additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27(1)(b) according to the Supreme Court in Sanjay Kumar Singh?

2026 Supreme(Online)(AP) 3250

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESHVenkateswarlu Nimmagadda, JAndava Tulasamma – AppellantVersusAram Kotireddy – RespondentCIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2380/2025

The lower appellate court, as the final fact-finding court, can admit additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC if such evidence is necessary to pronounce judgment or for substantial cause, ensuring that procedural technicalities do not hinder substantial justice.

Legal Category Hierarchy

Table of Contents

3. Under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC, can additional evidence be admitted even if conditions (a) or (aa) are not strictly satisfied?

4. What is the significance of the appellate court being the final fact-finding court in applications for additional evidence?

5. What is the test for allowing additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27(1)(b) according to the Supreme Court in Sanjay Kumar Singh?

Cases Referred (2)

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Venkateswarlu Nimmagadda, J
Andava Tulasamma – Appellant
Versus
Aram Kotireddy – Respondent
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2380/2025