Judgment Being aggrieved by judgment in A.S.No.139 of 2004 reversing judgment of the trial Court and thereby decreeing plaintiffs suit for recovery of possession, unsuccessful defendant has filed this Second Appeal. 2. Suit property relates to 4 ½ cents out of 22 cents in S.No.74/13A in Arugur Village, Nemmely. Plaintiff claims that suit property was assigned to him under assignment deed (dt.012. 1983) under Land Ceiling proceedings. Defendant is on the eastern side of the suit property. Case of plaintiff is that when plaintiff was absent from the village on 10.02.1998, defendant committed trespass during plaintiffs absence. After approaching local panchayat, plaintiff filed suit on 30.07.1998 for delivery of possession. 3. Appellant/defendant resisted the suit and filed written statement denying title of the respondent/plaintiff. Defendant has denied having trespassed into the suit property and claimed that defendant is in possession of the suit property for more than 60 years and prayed for dismissal of suit. 4. On the above pleadings three issues were framed. To substantiate plaintiffs case, plaintiff examined himself as PW1. Kist receipt paid by plaintiff was marked as Ex.A1. On the defendants side DWs 1 to 3 were examined and Exs. B1 to B6 were marked. Commissioners report and plan were marked as Exs.C1 and C2. 5. Upon consideration of oral and documentary evidence trial Court held that excepting Ex.A1-kist receipt, plaintiff has not produced any evidence his document of title viz., assignment deed to prove his title. Trial Court also held that no independent evidence was adduced to prove his cause of action. Referring to evidence of DW1 to DW2, trial Court held that defendant proved his long possession and on those findings trial Court dismissed plaintiffs suit for recovery of possession. 6. Aggrieved by the trial Court judgment, plaintiff filed an appeal in A.S.No.139 of 2004 before Sub-Court, Mayiladuthurai. In the lower Appellate Court plaintiff filed petition under Or.41,R.27 C.P.C for receiving documents as additional evidence:-(i) Notice in land ceiling proceedings dated July 1983 (Ex-A2) (ii) Natham Tharisu Patta dated 33. 98(Ex.A3). 7. Referring to Exs.A2 and A3, first Appellate Court held that plaintiff has proved that suit property in S.No.74/13 – 22 cents was assigned to the plaintiff. Referring to Commissioners report and plan (Exs.C1 and C2), lower Appellate Court held that defendant encroached East-West 1.2m and North-South 18.2m and ordered recovery of possession of the above said extent. 98(Ex.A3). 7. Referring to Exs.A2 and A3, first Appellate Court held that plaintiff has proved that suit property in S.No.74/13 – 22 cents was assigned to the plaintiff. Referring to Commissioners report and plan (Exs.C1 and C2), lower Appellate Court held that defendant encroached East-West 1.2m and North-South 18.2m and ordered recovery of possession of the above said extent. On those findings, lower Appellate Court reversed judgment of trial Court and allowed the appeal and ordered recovery of possession to the above said extent of encroachment by the defendant. 8. Being aggrieved by reversal judgment in A.S.No.139/2004, defendant has filed this Second Appeal. Following substantial questions of law were formulated for consideration. "a. Whether the judgment of the lower Appellate Court is liable to be set aside in its failure to follow the mandate under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC in allowing reception of additional evidence? b. Whether the lower Appellate Court, as a final Court of facts, erred in not adverting to evidence of D.W.2 and D.W.3, especially when reversing the findings of the Trial Court?" 9. Learned counsel for appellant Mr.S.Sounthar submitted that the ingredients of Or.41,R.27 C.P.C, is not satisfied and while so, lower Appellate Court was not right in allowing the petition filed under Or.41,R.27 C.P.C. It was further submitted that Ex.A2 is only a notice issued under Land Ceiling Act, which cannot establish plaintiffs title. It was further argued that Ex.A3 Natham patta is not a reliable document of title and while so, Court below erred in placing reliance upon Exs.A2 and A3. It was further argued that Ex.A3 Natham patta is not a reliable document of title and while so, Court below erred in placing reliance upon Exs.A2 and A3. It was further argued that Ex.A3 Natham Patta is not a reliable document of title and while so, Court below erred in placing reliance upon Exs.A2 and A3. It was further argued that Exs.A2 and A3 cannot be taken as documents of title and lower Appellate Court erred in determining the question in favour of the plaintiff and the judgment of lower Appellate Court cannot be sustained. Plaintiff claims that extent of 22 cents in S.No.74/13 was assigned to him under Land Ceiling Act. Ex.A2 is the notice issued to plaintiff calling upon him to remit the amount towards assignment. Ex.A3 (dt.33. 1998) is manaivari Patta issued in favour of the plaintiff. Plaintiff claims that extent of 22 cents in S.No.74/13 was assigned to him under Land Ceiling Act. Ex.A2 is the notice issued to plaintiff calling upon him to remit the amount towards assignment. Ex.A3 (dt.33. 1998) is manaivari Patta issued in favour of the plaintiff. Both Exs.A2 and A3 were filed as additional documents in the lower Appellate Court under Or.41,R.27 C.P.C and were received by lower Appellate Court. .10. First substantial question of law framed is whether the lower Appellate Court failed to follow the mandate under Or.41,R.27 C.P.C in allowing reception of additional evidence. In the application filed under Or.41,R.27 C.P.C before the lower Appellate Court in I.A.No.9 of 2006, plaintiff stated that the original deed was deposited in bank and therefore could not be filed before the appellate Court and hence came to be filed before Lower Appellate Court. Learned counsel for appellant/defendant contended that .what was produced was only a notice issued under Land Ceiling proceedings and hence reason adduced in the petition is false. It was further submitted that Exs.A2 and A3 were very well available with plaintiff at the time of trial and no grounds were made out for admission of additional evidence by lower Appellate Court. It was further contended that admission of additional evidence was not justified and additional evidence was improperly admitted and therefore, reversal judgment of Lower Appellate Court cannot be sustained. .11. For receiving additional evidence in the Appellate Court, three conditions must be fulfilled:- i.the trial Court had refused to admit the evidence though it ought to have been admitted; ii.the evidence was not available to the party despite exercise of due diligence; -and- .iii.the appellate Court required the additional evidence so as to enable it to pronounce better judgment or for any other substantial cause of like nature. 12. In the affidavit in I.A.No.9 of 2006, plaintiff averred that the original assignment dated 37. 1983 was submitted to the bank for availing loan and xerox copy was filed before the trial Court. As trial Court refused to admit Xerox copy of the assignment and therefore Ex.A2 is to be admitted. 12. In the affidavit in I.A.No.9 of 2006, plaintiff averred that the original assignment dated 37. 1983 was submitted to the bank for availing loan and xerox copy was filed before the trial Court. As trial Court refused to admit Xerox copy of the assignment and therefore Ex.A2 is to be admitted. Learned counsel for appellant submitted that Ex.A2 is a notice issued under Land Ceiling proceedings directing the recipient /plaintiff to pay the amount in various instalments and Ex.A2 cannot be said to be an assignment in favour of the plaintiff and while so, lower Appellate Court was not justified in receiving Ex.A2 as additional evidence. .13. Even though Ex.A2 is not the original assignment, Ex.A2 is the notice issued to the appellant calling upon him to remit the instalments before the treasury. Ex.A2 contains the signature and seal of authorized officer under Land Ceiling Act. Ex.A3 (dt. 33. 1998) is the Manaivari patta issued by Special Tahsildar, Sirkali, where the documents produced as additional evidence were public documents having bearing on the merits of the case, appellate Court was justified in receiving the documents as additional evidence under Or.41,R.27 C.P.C. The application to receive additional .evidence was supported by affidavit and the plaintiff established that the document sought to be produced was not received by the trial Court. On being satisfied with such evidence relevant for determination of the issue, lower appellate court was right in admitting the additional evidence. It cannot be said that there was failure to follow the mandate under Or.41,R.27 C.P.C in allowing reception of additional evidence and the first substantial question of law is answered against the appellant. 14. In a suit for recovery of possession plaintiff must show a better right in himself to possession than that of the defendant. Plaintiff must prove his title and that he is owner of the suit property sought to be recovered. Plaintiff could succeed in his suit for recovery of possession only on proof of his title. Learned counsel for appellant contended that though plaintiff averred that he is owner of the suit property before the trial Court, he has not produced any document and non-production of title is a serious lacuna and trial Court right dismissed the suit. It was further contended that Or.41,R.27 C.P.C cannot be used to fill up serious lacuna. Learned counsel for appellant contended that though plaintiff averred that he is owner of the suit property before the trial Court, he has not produced any document and non-production of title is a serious lacuna and trial Court right dismissed the suit. It was further contended that Or.41,R.27 C.P.C cannot be used to fill up serious lacuna. Of course, possession is evidence of title and plaintiff has alleged that since he has produced the same before bank for obtaining loan, he cannot claim possession of title. To render proper justice lower Appellate Court allowed petition under Or.41, R.27 C.P.C. 15. In so far as Ex.A2, it was contended that there is discrepancy in the name of recipient stated as Neethimohan. It was further contended that name of plaintiff is Neethirajan and while so Ex.A2 issued to one Neethimohan cannot confer any title upon the plaintiff. It was further argued that Ex.A2 does not refer to suit property and Ex.A2 is mere notice directing the party to pay the instalment and the lower Appellate Court erred in relying upon Ex.A2 – mere notice to pay installments. 16. The above contention does not merit acceptance. In EX.A2 notice, in at least two places name of the recipient is stated as Neethirajan. Only in one place, name has been stated as Neethimohan. However in all places fathers name is clearly stated as Velayutham indicating that Ex.A2 notice was issued only to the plaintiff. 17. It was nextly contended that there is discrepancy in the description of suit property. Drawing courts attention to Exs.A2 and A3, the learned counsel contended that Ex.A3 patta refers only to S.No.74/13B whereas the suit property is Survey No.74/13A and therefore Ex.A3 cannot be correlated to the suit property. As seen from the description of the property in Ex.A2, the original Survey Number is 74/13 -0.22 acre. Survey No. 74/13 was latter subdivided as Survey No.74/13A and Survey No.74/13B. In fact in Ex.A3 as against S.No.74/13B, old survey number is stated as Survey No.74/13-part. There is no force in the contention that Survey No.74/13B cannot be related to the suit property. 18. Defendant is alleged to have trespassed into the suit property on 2. 1998. Ex.A3 patta said to have been issued on 33. 1998. In fact in Ex.A3 as against S.No.74/13B, old survey number is stated as Survey No.74/13-part. There is no force in the contention that Survey No.74/13B cannot be related to the suit property. 18. Defendant is alleged to have trespassed into the suit property on 2. 1998. Ex.A3 patta said to have been issued on 33. 1998. Learned counsel for appellant contended that even as per case of plaintiff at the time when patta was issued, possession was with the defendant and therefore based on Ex.A3, Court cannot arrive at definite conclusion that 22 cents were allotted to the plaintiff. The above contention does not merit acceptance. Even though Ex.A3 patta was issued on 33. 1998, Revenue authorities must have inspected the property much prior to March 1998. Therefore, it cannot be contended that Ex.A3 patta does not reflect the correct position. During his visit Commissioner has also noted the encroachment. In Exs.C1 and C2 Commissioner and Surveyor have noted that appellant encroached 1.2m East-West and 18.2m North-South, which is shown in a triangular portion in Ex.C2 plan. Property in S.No.74/13 – 22 cents having been assigned to plaintiff. Plaintiff is entitled to recover the same and defendant cannot successfully resist the same. Onbehalf of appellant, it was contended that plaintiffs suit is 1 feet in the lower level and disputed encroachment area is 1 feet higher level. It was therefore contended that defendant has been in possession of the said portion for quite long time and plaintiff has lost his right to recover the same. Defendant has not pleaded and raised plea of adverse possession and ouster. Without raising plea, defendant cannot contend long possession and enjoyment and ouster. More so, when hardly any evidence was adduced by the defendant to substantiate the same. 19. To render justice between the parties, lower Appellate Court rightly received Exs.A2 and A3 as additional evidence. Upon analysis of facts and materials on record, lower Appellate Court rightly reversed the findings of trial Court and decreed the suit ordering recovery of possession. The impugned judgment of lower Appellate Court does not suffer from any serious error warranting interference exercising jurisdiction under Sec.100 C.P.C. 20. In the result, Judgment and Decree dated 03.03.2006 in A.S.No.139/2004 on the file of Principal Sub-Court, Mayiladuthurai partly allowing the judgment and decree of District Munsif Court, Sirkali is confirmed and the Second Appeal is dismissed. No costs. The impugned judgment of lower Appellate Court does not suffer from any serious error warranting interference exercising jurisdiction under Sec.100 C.P.C. 20. In the result, Judgment and Decree dated 03.03.2006 in A.S.No.139/2004 on the file of Principal Sub-Court, Mayiladuthurai partly allowing the judgment and decree of District Munsif Court, Sirkali is confirmed and the Second Appeal is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, M.P.No.1 of 2007 is closed.