2026 INSC 211 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 5168-5169 OF 2011 GOBIND SINGH AND ORS. …APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. …RESPONDENT(S)

J U D G M E N T

VIKRAM NATH, J.

1. The present appeals, by special leave, are directed against the judgment dated 12th August, 2009, and the subsequent judgment rendered in review on 15th March, 2011, by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Bench Gwalior,, Reason: 1 Hereinafter, referred to as “High Court”. in First Appeal No. 80 of 1996 and Review Petition No. 300 of 2009, respectively whereby the appeal filed by the Union of India was allowed and the review of the appellant was dismissed. By the aforesaid orders, the judgment and decree dated 25 March 1996 passed by the Court of the Vth Additional District Judge, Gwalior, Digitally signed by, in Civil Signature Not Verified NEETU KHAJURIA Date: 2026.03.09

2 Hereinafter, referred to as “Civil Court”.

Suit No. 5-A of 1990 was set aside and the suit was dismissed.

2. The appellants, Hereinafter, referred to as “appellant-plaintiffs”. herein instituted in Civil Suit No. 5-A of 1990, seeking a declaration of title and a decree of permanent injunction against the defendants, Hereinafter, referred to as “respondent-defendants”.. Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 were arrayed as defendant Nos. 1 to 4, respectively, in the said suit.

FACTS OF THE CASE: -

3. The facts, insofar as they are necessary for the disposal of the present appeals, are set out hereinafter: -

3.1. The case of the appellant-plaintiffs is that the land bearing Survey No. 2029, admeasuring 8 Bighas and 10 Biswas, situated in Patwari Halqa No. 51, opposite Baaj Cinema Hall, Murar, Pargana and District Gwalior, is owned and possessed by them. It is alleged that on 4th December, 1989 officers of the respondent-defendants entered upon the suit property with the intent to remove the wire fencing erected thereon, the two shops constructed by the plaintiffs, as well as the standing crops on the said land.

3.2. In this backdrop, the appellant-plaintiffs instituted a civil suit, being Civil Suit No. 55A of 1989, Re-numbered later as “5-A of 1990”., on 5^th December, 1989 before the Civil Court, seeking a declaration of title and a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the suit property. The appellant- plaintiffs asserted that the suit property constituted their ancestral property and that their forefathers had been in continuous ownership and possession thereof for the preceding fifty years.

3.3. The Trial Court, vide judgment dated 26th March, 1996, decreed the suit, holding that the title, ownership and possession of the suit property vested in the appellant-plaintiffs, and that the respondent-

defendants had failed to establish any title thereto.

3.4. Aggrieved by the said decree, the respondent- defendants preferred first appeal before the High Court. During the pendency of the appeal, the appellant-plaintiffs filed an application under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, For short, “CPC”. seeking to place on record certified copies of the General Land Register maintained by the respondent-defendants. It was the case of the

appellant-plaintiffs that the said documents would demonstrate that the suit property stood recorded as private land.

3.5. The High Court, vide judgment dated 12th August, 2009, allowed the appeal preferred by the respondent-defendants, holding that the appellant- plaintiffs had claimed perfection of title on the basis of a decree passed in an earlier suit to which the respondent-defendants were not parties.

3.6. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant-plaintiffs instituted a review petition before the High Court primarily on the ground that the application for additional evidence had not been decided. The High Court, however, by judgment dated 15th March, 2011, dismissed not only the review petition but also the application for additional evidence and affirmed the judgment rend