JUDGMENT A.R. Tiwari, J. 1. The appellant is aggrieved by the judgment delivered by 1st Addl. Judge to the Court of District Judge, Indore on 26-08-1972 on Reference made to it under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short the Act') registered as MJC No. 13/70. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the lands bearing survey Nos. 49, 57, 59, 60/1, 60/2, 61 and 62 situated at village Chitawad were acquired under the provisions of the Act on 27-05-1966. The main dispute as regards apportionment of the amount of compensation existed between the appellant and Respondent No. 1. The matter was, therefore, referred for decision of the Court under Section 30 of the Act. The claimants led evidence. The Trial Court, on evaluation of the evidence, held that Respondent No. 1 was entitled to share the amount of compensation proportionate to his land admeasuring 8.14 acres (Survey Nos. 60/2, 61 and 62) and the appellant was entitled to receive the amount of compensation concerning the remaining Survey Nos. i.e. 49, 57, 59 and 60/1 i.e. 6.12 acres. The total land acquired was 14.26 acres. This judgment is challenged in this appeal by Smt. Sukhdevibai. She expired on 25-04-1982 and her legal representatives have been brought on record. 3. We have heard Shri V. S. Samvatsar, learned counsel for the appellants and Shri S. D. Sanghi, learned senior counsel with Shri N. K. Sanghi for the Respondent No. 1. We also heard Shri Piyush Mathur, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for Respondent No. 12. None appeared for the other Respondents. 4. Right at the threshold it needs to be mentioned that the legal representatives of the original deceased Appellant filed IA. No. 4296/95 on 5-9-1995 under Order XLI, Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure and another application under the same provision marked as I. A. No. 5705/95 along with the affidavit of the legal representative Rajendra for permission to lead additional evidence. They also filed yet another application on the same day marked as I. A. No. 5706/95 under Order XIII, Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Respondent No. 1 filed objections in oppugnation on 18-09-1995 and on 02-01-1996. This Court had ordered on 26-09-1995 that I. A. No. 4296/95 shall be considered at the time of final hearing. 5. The Respondent No. 1 filed objections in oppugnation on 18-09-1995 and on 02-01-1996. This Court had ordered on 26-09-1995 that I. A. No. 4296/95 shall be considered at the time of final hearing. 5. The counsel for the appellant submitted as under :- (a) The finding in favour of the Respondent No. 1 is not on firm foundation and deserves to be dislodged. (b) The entire amount of compensation was payable to the appellant as per her entitlement. (c) I. A. Nos. 4296/95 and 5705/95 are submitted for additional evidence in support of the claim and the same may be allowed. 6. Shri Sanghi, on the other hand, contended that. - i) The finding reached in favour of the Respondent No. 1 to the extent of 8.14 acres is proper and valid and the Court below has done full justice to both sides. ii) The apportionment in the amount of compensation is properly made according to the title as found by the Court below and the judgment does not warrant any interference. iii) There is no proper ground to allow I.A. Nos. 4296/95 and 5705/95. Reopening of the case at this distance of time will seriously prejudice Respondent No. 1. 7. The lands in question were acquired under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Amount of compensation was settled under Section 11 of the Act. Dispute arose as to the apportionment and as to the persons to whom the same is payable. The Land Acquisition Officer then took recourse to Section 30 of the Act and exercised the discretion to refer this dispute to the decision of the Court. The Court rendered the decision holding Harichand entitled to receive the amount of compensation to the extent of the land admeasuring 8.14 acres on the linchpin of his being the title-holder i.e. Bhumiswami and holding Sukhdei (appellant) entitled to receive the amount of compensation in regard to the remaining lands. This decision is challenged in this appeal. 8. The basic distinction between a reference under Section 18 and one made under Section 30 of the Act is that the reference under the latter section is made solely on the question of title by the acquisition officer of his own motion while the reference under the former section is made on the application of person interested in the compensation money and not by the acquiring officer of his own motion. This is the position indicated in Hazura Singh v. Sunder Singh, 97 RR. 1919 = 53 I.C. 589. The question is one of apportionment and apportionment only. Person claiming compensation is required to establish his title to it affirmatively as is held in Secretary of State v. Satish Chandra Sen, AIR 1931 EC. 1. Onus lies on such claimant to prove better or superior title to compensation as is the position laid down in Manche Anege Akue v. Manche Kojo Ababio IV, 47 C.L.J. 337 - PC. 8-A. Vide paragraphs Nos. 12 to 15 of the judgment under challenge, the Court below has recorded the findings on material issue Nos. 1 and 2 as under :- "The party No. 2 Harichand has produced a certified copy of common decree as regards CFA Nos. 36/61, 44/61, and 2/62 vide Ex. H.C. 13. These appeals were fought between Harichand on one side and the party No. 1 on the other. In para No. 12 of the decree, it is held as follows :- "The plaintiff Harichand shall also get half the share in the Pattedari land situated in village Chitawad, Tehsil Indore, District Indore and bearing Kh. Nos. 49, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61 and 62 and admeasuring 16.29 acres. The plaintiff Harichand shall be entitled to get his name mutated in respect of half of the said land in the Revenue Records and is declared to be Bhumiswami of his half share of the abovementioned lands." Thus as between the abovesaid two branches of Nanakchand, Harichand has been declared in a decree by the Hon'ble High Court to be entitled to half share in the abovementioned lands, with rights of Bhumiswami. 13. Harichand has further produced Exs. H.C. 20 H.C. 21, H.C. 22, H.C. 23, and H.C. 24 which show that in execution of the above partition decree passed in his favour actual partition was done by competent revenue authority and he was given Kh. Nos. 60/2, 61 and 62 comprising an area of 8.14 acres and his name was also mutated on these lands as Bhumiswami. 14. Below I have held that Sukhdevibai could not prove that the lands her husband Ramnarayan took on lease from Ramchand are the same as acquired for the University. Therefore, Harichand as a result of the recognizance of his right to 8.14 acres out of the acquired land is entitled to the compensation proportionately. 14. Below I have held that Sukhdevibai could not prove that the lands her husband Ramnarayan took on lease from Ramchand are the same as acquired for the University. Therefore, Harichand as a result of the recognizance of his right to 8.14 acres out of the acquired land is entitled to the compensation proportionately. 15. My finding on these issues is, therefore, in affirmative." -x- -x- -x- 9. Nothing substantial is urged to show any error, infirmity or even perversity in the aforesaid findings. When these findings remain unassailable and thus, uninterferable, the fate of this appeal becomes luculent. 10. We have gone through the evidential material and find that the findings are on firm foundation incapable of being incinerated. The objector, who is appellant in this appeal succeeded to the extent of compensation of the land admeasuring 6.12 acres. 11. We need not restate evidence or reasons when we generally agree with the conclusion of the Court below. In AIR 1967 SC 1124 , Girjanandini Devi and Ors. v. Bijendra Narain Choudhury it is held as under :- "It is not the duty of the Appellate Court when it agrees with the view of the Trial Court on the evidence either to restate the effect of the evidence or to reiterate the reasons given by the Trial Court. Expression of general agreement with reasons given by the Court decision of which is under appeal would ordinarily suffice." -x- -x- -x- 12. We now take up two applications under Order XLI, Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure to examine whether prayer for production of additional evidence, despite opposition, is irrecusable. The application under Order 13, Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure was rejected on 2-1-1996. The prayer is made under (aa). Order XLI, Rule 27 reads as under :- (1) The parties to an appeal shall not be entitled to produce additional evidence, whether oral or documentary, in the Appellate Court. The application under Order 13, Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure was rejected on 2-1-1996. The prayer is made under (aa). Order XLI, Rule 27 reads as under :- (1) The parties to an appeal shall not be entitled to produce additional evidence, whether oral or documentary, in the Appellate Court. But if - (a) the Court from whose decree the appeal is preferred has refused to admit evidence which ought to have been admitted, or (aa) the party seeking to produce additional evidence, establishes that notwithstanding the exercise of due diligence, such evidence was not within his knowledge or could not, after the exercise of due diligence, be produced by him at the time when the decree appealed against was passed, or (b) the Appellate Court requires any document to be produced or any witness to be examined to enable it to pronounce judgment or for any other substantial cause, the Appellate Court may allow such evidence or document to be produced, or witness to be examined." -x- -x- -x- 13. New provision vide (aa), as noted above, is inserted by Amendment Act, 1976. Certain dates may be noticed - 11-02-1966 Notification issued by State under Section 4 of the Act. 01-03-1966 Notification issued under Section 6 of the Act. 27-05-1966 Date of acquisition. 26-08-1972 Judgment of the Court below. 12-09-1972 Appeal filed in this Court. 25-04-1982 Original appellant expired. 03-01-1986 Legal representatives substituted on application filed on 24-08-1982 (Rajendra-L.R. thus, came on the record). 05-09-1995 I. A. Under Order XLI, Rule 27, Civil Procedure Code. 04-12-1995 I. A. Under Order XLI, Rule 27, Civil Procedure Code. 14. These two applications for production of additional evidence are filed after about nine years from the time Legal Representative Rajendra was put on record as one of the appellants. There are no proper details and particulars in terms of (aa) above. These are fraught with obscurity. 15. The applications are opposed on the ground that (a) it is impermissible under the law and (b) it will lead to reopening of an old matter. The discretion is strictly circumscribed by the limitations specified in the provision. Additional evidence cannot be permitted contrary to the principles governing its reception as it held in Arjan v. Kartar, AIR 1951 SC 193 , Nathu v. Financial Commn, AIR 1976 SC 1053 . The discretion is strictly circumscribed by the limitations specified in the provision. Additional evidence cannot be permitted contrary to the principles governing its reception as it held in Arjan v. Kartar, AIR 1951 SC 193 , Nathu v. Financial Commn, AIR 1976 SC 1053 . The provision is not intended to enable the party to patch up the weak parts of the case as is laid down in Muneshwari v. Jugal, AIR 1952 Cal. 368. Delay is one factor to decline the prayer as is laid down in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Bala Prabharatamma, AIR 1990 AP 144 . Law is not in tenebrosity. Conditions, as held in Ladd v. Marshall, 1954 All ER 745, must be fulfilled. In the instant case, the conditions as envisaged by the provision are not fulfilled. There is thus, no scope to exercise the discretion in favour of the plea. 16. In the circumstances, we find that the aforesaid applications are rejectable. Accordingly, we reject these applications as being contrary to the facts and legal position. 17. In view of the aforesaid view on the findings reached by the Court below, we conclude that there is no ground warranting interference in the judgment under challenge. 18. Ex consequenti, we affirm the judgment rendered by the Court below and dismiss this appeal, but without any orders as to costs. Counsel fee for the appellant and Respondent No. 1 each is, however fixed at Rs. 1,000/-, if certified. 19. Record of the Court below be returned.