The court established that additional evidence must comply with Order XLI Rule 27 CPC, invalidating the appellate decision due to procedural flaws.

This Second Appeal has been filed by the defendants in a suit for injunction. The trial court dismissed the suit and the First Appellate Court reversed the judgment of the trial court.

The appeal has been admitted on the following questions of law;

1. Has not the lower appellate court erred in relying on photocopies and true copies of documents produced at the appellate stage for want proof?

2. Has not the lower appellate court erred in holding that there is nothing to show any right of possession of the plaint schedule property having been exercised by the defendants, mainly relying on Exhibit A2 - photocopy of a sale deed (wrongly mentioned as Exhibit A3 in paragraph 11 of the Judgment in A.S.No.69/04) especially when the plaintiffs themselves challenged Exhibit A 2 as a forged Sale deed?

3. Has not the lower appellate court erred in appreciating the pleadings and evidence in its correct perspective and in passing a decree in favour of plaintiffs by reversing the findings of fact of trial court R.S.A.No.1000 of 2005 which had the opportunity to see and assess the demeanor of witnesses?

2. The facts are as follows;

The plaint schedule property belonged to the predecessor-in- interest of the plaintiffs. The suit was filed in 1998, praying for a decree of injunction against the defendants, contending that after the death of their father, the plaintiffs continued in possession and that the defendants attempted to trespass into the property. The defendants claimed that the father of the plaintiffs had executed an agreement with the father of the defendants in 1978, agreeing to sell the plaint schedule property.

Ext.B1 is the agreement. It is contended that the entire sale consideration had been received by the father of the plaintiffs, but the document had not been executed since the parties were relatives, and the basic tax of the property was also being paid by the defendants. The agreement relied on by the defendants was executed 20 years prior to the suit.

3. Originally, before the trial court, Ext.A1 was the only document produced on the side of the plaintiff which is a basic tax receipt issued on 29.12.1997 in the name of Smt.S.G.Maniyammal. On the side of the defendants Exts.B1 R.S.A.No.1000 of 2005 and B2 series and Ext.B3 have been produced. Ext.B1 is the agreement dated 27.2.1978 between the predecessors of the parties. Ext.B2 series are all basic tax receipts ranging from 1978 to 1997 and Ext.B3 is the copy of the electoral card No.8 of Ward No.2 in the name of Subramaniam, the predecessor of the defendants and others. The plaintiffs were examined as PW1 and PW2, the 2nd defendant was examined as DW1 and the attestor of Ext.B1 agreement was examined as DW2. The trial court dismissed the suit finding that the plaintiffs were not able to establish their case of possession since the suit was only for injunction against trespass.

4. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the trial court, the plaintiffs preferred an appeal before the First Appellate Court. The First Appellate Court reversed the decree relying on the documents which have been produced at the appellate stage.

The main contention of the appellants before this Court is that the First Appellate Court ought not to have accepted the documents in evidence going by the requirement of Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure , 1908. It is hence submitted that the judgment of the First Appellate Court is liable R.S.A.No.1000 of 2005 to be interfered with. Reliance was placed on the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court in Navabharath Kuries & Trading Co. v. C.E.Job & Ors.[ 2007 (1) KLJ 22 ] and the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Malayalam Plantations Limited v. State of Kerala & Anr. [ (2010) 13 SCC 487 ]. The counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs sought to justify the judgment of the First Appellate Court by contending that the trial court had gone wrong in finding in favour of the defendants solely based on an unregistered agreement t