Judgment :- 1. The plaintiff is the appellant. 2. The plaintiff filed the suit for declaration and recovery of possession of the suit properties. The case of the plaintiff was that the properties originally belonged to one Seviyappa Udayar, son of Devaraya Udayar and the said Seviyappa Udayar executed a registered settlement deed in favour of the plaintiff/appellant on 6.10.1986 and handed over possession and at the time of settlement, the plaintiff/appellant was minor and it was accepted and acted upon by his father and as per the settlement deed dated 6.10.1986, he became entitled to the possession and enjoyment of the suit properties and the Government Officials purchased the suit properties and other properties from one Narayana Udayar son of Devaraya Udayar under a registered sale deed dated 28.10.1997 and took possession of the property and Narayana Udayar was not entitled to any right to the suit properties and the sale deed dated 28.10.1997 in favour of the Government of Tamil Nadu will not confer any title and as the defendants/respondents refused to give possession and denied the title of the plaintiff/appellant, the suit was filed for the relief already stated. 3. The respondents contested the suit stating that the suit property and other properties belonged to Narayana Udayar and the revenue records also confirm the same and the plaintiff's vendor Seviyappa Udayar never had any title or possession to the suit property and therefore, he could not have conveyed any title to the suit property in favour of the plaintiff and the settlement deed is also not valid and the plaintiff/appellant will not get any title under the settlement deed and after the purchase of the lands, the Government allotted the properties to various persons and they are in possession of the property and therefore, the suit filed without impleading the persons in possession is not maintainable. Further, as the Government has purchased the property from the real owner, the plaintiff cannot claim any right over the property. 4. The Trial Court framed three issues which are as follows:- "1) Whether the suit properties belong to the plaintiff? 2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to delivery of the suit properties? 3) To what reliefs, the plaintiff is entitled in the suit?" 5. 4. The Trial Court framed three issues which are as follows:- "1) Whether the suit properties belong to the plaintiff? 2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to delivery of the suit properties? 3) To what reliefs, the plaintiff is entitled in the suit?" 5. The Trial Court after analysing the oral and documentary evidence and taking into consideration all the recitals in Ex.A1, the settlement deed, held that the appellant/plaintiff did not prove the valid execution of the settlement deed and under the settlement deed, the appellant will not get any title and the appellant also did not prove that Seviyappa Udayar was in possession of the property and he had title and without proving the title of Seviyappa Udayar, the appellant cannot claim any title and dismissed the suit and the same was confirmed by the first appellate court after independently appreciating the oral and documentary evidence. 6. In the first appellate court, the appellant filed I.A.No.27 of 2010 under Order 47 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure to produce additional evidence and filed seven documents and the first appellate court dismissed that application holding that the appellant's vendor had no title to the suit property and therefore, the documents need not be considered and that will not improve the case of the plaintiff. Hence, the second appeal. 7. The following substantial questions of law were framed at the time of admission of the second appeal:- "1. Whether the lower appellate court was right in holding that Ex.A1 settlement deed has not been proved in accordance with law overlooking the proviso to Section 68 and 69 of the Indian Evidence act? 2) Whether lower appellate court was right in holding that the suit is bad for non joinder of necessary parties in the absence of any plea or any evidence relating to the same? 3) Whether the lower appellate court was right in rejecting I.A.No.27 of 2010 filed under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC without considering the nature and necessity of the documents produced alongwith the said application? 4) Whether the lower appellate court was right in holding that the revenue records are documents evidencing title of the vendor under the sale deed dated 28.10.1997?" 8. 4) Whether the lower appellate court was right in holding that the revenue records are documents evidencing title of the vendor under the sale deed dated 28.10.1997?" 8. Mr.R.Subramanian, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the courts below erred in holding that Ex.A1 document was not proved without considering the provisions of sections 68 and 69 of the Evidence Act and Ex.A1 is a registration copy of the settlement deed in favour of the plaintiff/appellant and it is admissible in evidence as it is the certified copy issued by the Registration Department and therefore, the document cannot be doubted. He further submitted that no issue has been framed regarding the non-joinder of necessary parties and no evidence was let in and in the absence of any pleading or issue regarding non-joinder of necessary parties, a suit cannot be dismissed on that ground and the lower appellate court, without properly appreciating Order 1 Rules 9 and 10, erred in holding that the suit is bad for non joinder of necessary parties viz., the beneficiaries who were allotted the land by the Government. He further submitted that the lower appellate court ought to have allowed the application filed in I.A.No.27 of 2010 under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure and those documents are all registered documents and under those documents, the properties are proved to be originally owned by Devaraya Udayar, the father of the vendor of the plaintiff and those documents would prove that Devaraya Udayar was the owner of the property and he had two sons Seviyappa Udayar and Narayana Udayar and from Seviyappa Udayar, the plaintiff claims title under the settlement deed, Ex.A1 and the plaintiff is also claiming 50% share in the properties and 50% share was only conveyed under Ex.A1 and therefore, those documents are relevant for the purpose of giving a finding regarding the title of the plaintiff to the suit properties and without appreciating the same, the first appellate court erred in dismissing the application and rejected the said documents. He further submitted that the court below also denied the relief of declaration to the appellant/plaintiff by ignoring Ex.A1 and acted on the revenue records and held that Narayana Udayar, who sold the property to the defendants, was recognised as the owner of the properties in the revenue records and therefore, he was the owner without appreciating that the revenue records will not confer any title and Narayana Udayar cannot claim any title to the properties on the basis of revenue records. He, therefore, submitted that the judgments of the courts below are liable to be set aside and having regard to Ex.A1, the plaintiff's right to the property has to be declared and the suit has to be decreed as prayed for. 9. On the other hand, Mr.M.Raja, learned Government Advocate (C.S.) representing the respondents submitted that in the written statement, a plea was taken that the beneficiaries are in possession of the property and after purchase, the properties were allotted to various persons and they have constructed houses and even thereafter, no attempt was made by the appellant to implead those persons who are in possession of the property and the appellant is also aware that the properties are in possession of some third parties and Seviyappa Udayar from whom, the appellant claims title, has no right or title to the properties and no document was filed by the plaintiff/appellant to prove that the property was owned and enjoyed by Seviyappa Udayar and even under Ex.A1, the appellant/plaintiff cannot claim any right and no right was conveyed under Ex.A1 to the plaintiff and the revenue records only show that one Narayana Udayar was the owner of the property and in the absence of any documents of title, such as original documents, the court has to rely upon the entries in the revenue records and therefore, the revenue records were taken into consideration by the courts below to hold that the plaintiff/appellant cannot claim any title. Further, the lower appellate court has rightly rejected the application filed in I.A.No.27 of 2010 and as held by the lower appellate court that those documents will not prove the title of the vendor of the plaintiff and additional evidence can be received only when those documents will help the court to render the judgment and when the plaintiff failed to prove his vendor's title she cannot insist upon receiving additional documents which will not prove the title of the vendor of the plaintiff and therefore, it was rightly rejected. After hearing the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the first substantial question of law was redrafted as follows:- "Whether the courts below are right in holding that the settlement deed, Ex.A1 has been validly proved and whether the plaintiff can claim any right or title under that document?" 10. The arguments were advanced by both the counsel on the redrafted substantial question of law. To appreciate the contention of both the parties, we will have to see Ex.A1, settlement deed under which the plaintiff claims title. Admittedly, Ex.A1 is the registration copy of the settlement deed alleged to have been executed by Seviyappa Udayar in favour of the plaintiff. Further, it is the case of the plaintiff that Devaraya Udayar was the father of Seviyappa Udayar and the plaintiff is the daughter of Narayana Udayar who is the brother of Seviyappa Udayar and paternal uncle of the plaintiff and under the settlement deed Ex.A1, she was given the property and therefore, she is entitled to the property. A reading of Ex.A1 would prove that the plaintiff cannot claim any title to the suit property unless she proves that the contingency provided in the settlement deed had taken place and therefore, she got the property under settlement. A reading of Ex.A1 would make it clear that it is not an absolute gift given in favour of the plaintiff/appellant and it is only a contingent interest. The relevant clause in the settlement deed is as follows:- "TAMIL" 11. Therefore, the plaintiff/appellant will get the property only in the event of Seviyappa Udayar died without leaving any children. A reading of Ex.A1 would make it clear that it is not an absolute gift given in favour of the plaintiff/appellant and it is only a contingent interest. The relevant clause in the settlement deed is as follows:- "TAMIL" 11. Therefore, the plaintiff/appellant will get the property only in the event of Seviyappa Udayar died without leaving any children. Admittedly, no evidence was let in to the effect that Seviyappa Udayar died without leaving any issues and therefore, as per the recitals in Ex.A1, she did not become entitled to the property and therefore, she has no right to the property. Further, no pleading was also made to that effect. Therefore, where on a transfer of property, an interest thereunder is created in favour of a person to that effect only on the happening of a specified uncertain event, or if a specified uncertain event shall not happen, the person thereby acquires a contingent interest in the property. It is further provided in section 21 of the Transfer of Property Act that such interest becomes a vested interest in the later case when the happening of the event becomes impossible. Therefore, having regard to the definition of contingent interest as stated in section 21 of the Transfer of Property Act and having regard to the recitals in Ex.A1, the plaintiff got a contingent interest in the property and she did not get any absolute or vested interest in the property and her interest will become perfect only in the event of Seviyappa Udayar died without leaving any issues. As no evidence was let in by the plaintiff/appellant to the effect that Seviyappa Udder died without leaving any issues, the interest given in Ex.A1 remains only contingent and it will not become vested interest and therefore, in the absence of any proof that Seviyappa Udayar died without leaving any issues, the plaintiff/appellant will not get any right over the property. Therefore, according to me, even assuming that Ex.A1 is admissible in evidence, though it is a registration copy of the document, the plaintiff did not get any title over the property under the document. 12. Further, under section 68 of the Evidence Act, if a document is required by law to be attested, it shall not be used as evidence until one attesting witness has been called to prove the execution when the execution is specifically denied by the other side. 12. Further, under section 68 of the Evidence Act, if a document is required by law to be attested, it shall not be used as evidence until one attesting witness has been called to prove the execution when the execution is specifically denied by the other side. As per section 69, when the attesting witnesses are not found or they are no more, then the attestation can be proved by examining any person who has got knowledge about the signature of the attesting witnesses. In this case, the appellant/plaintiff did not prove the execution of document when the same has been specifically denied by the respondents, by examining the attesting witnesses or by examining other witnesses who are familiar with the signature of the attesting witnesses and therefore, the courts below rightly held that Ex.A1 was also not proved as per sections 68 and 69 of the Evidence Act. Hence, the first substantial question of law is answered against the appellant and the appellant will not get any right or title in the document Ex.A1 and the appellant got only a contingent interest and the appellant has not proved that the contingent interest became vested interest by the non-happening of the event stated in the document viz., Seviyappa Udayar died without leaving any issues and the document was not proved according to the provisions of sections 68 and 69 of the Act and therefore, the appellant cannot claim any title to the property. 13. It is seen from the judgment of the lower appellate court that during the pendency of the first appeal, the appellant filed I.A.No.27 of 2010 to mark seven documents and the documents are registered sale deeds in favour of Devaraya Udayar and under those documents, items 1, 3, 4, 5, 8, 11 to 13 were conveyed to Devayara Udayar. Under Order 41 Rule 27, additional evidence can be permitted on three occasions, viz., (1) when the Trial Court refused to admit the evidence which ought to have been admitted. (2) when the parties seeking to produce additional evidence proved to the satisfaction of the court that such evidence was not within his knowledge and he was not able to produce those documents despite the best efforts taken by him before the lower court; (3) when the documents produced would enable the court to pronounce the judgment or for any substantial cause. 14. 14. In this case, so far as the first contention is concerned, it will not apply and we will have to see whether the appellant is able to bring his case within the ambit of second and third conditions. No proof was adduced by the appellant that those documents were not within her knowledge and she came to know about the existence of those documents only after disposal of the appeal and therefore, the documents are required to be admitted. Further, those documents can be admitted only when they help the court to pronounce the judgment. 15. As stated supra, the documents are the sale deeds in favour of Devaraya Udayar in respect of certain items of suit properties. It is the case of the appellant that Devaraya Udayar was her grandfather and he had two sons Narayana Udayar and Seviyappa Udayar. Narayana Udayar got half share in the property and the remaining half share was owned by Seviyappa Udayar and Seviyappa Udayar settled his half share on the appellant and she claimed title. Even assuming that these documents would prove that Devaraya Udayar was the owner of the entire properties, having regard to the answer given to the first substantial question of law, that the appellant plaintiff will not get any right or title to the property under Ex.A1 as under Ex.A1, only contingent interest was conveyed and no vested interest and therefore, those documents will not improve the case of the appellant and that was considered by the court below and the application was rejected. Hence, the third substantial question of law is also answered against the appellant. 16. Admittedly, the suit properties are in possession of various persons and according to the respondents, they have stated in their statement itself that the properties were allotted to various beneficiaries and they are in possession of the property. No doubt, no issue was framed to the effect that whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties viz., the persons in possession were not impleaded. No doubt, no issue was framed to the effect that whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties viz., the persons in possession were not impleaded. Nevertheless, the parties went to trial with the knowledge that the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties and having regard to the arguments advanced by the plaintiff before the courts below as reflected in the judgment, the arguments were advanced regarding non-joinder of necessary parties and the courts below have rightly held that the suit was not maintainable as the persons in possession of the properties were not impleaded. 17. As per Order 1 Rule 9, though a suit cannot be dismissed for mis-joinder or nonjoinder of necessary parties, the proviso to Order 1 Rule 9 make it clear that sub-rule 9 will not apply to non-joinder of necessary parties. In this case, the plaintiff/appellant filed the suit for declaration and recovery of possession and therefore, without impleading those persons, who are in possession of the property, in their own right, the suit is not maintainable and the decree will not bind those persons. Hence, the courts below are right in holding that the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. The second substantial question of law is also answered against the appellant. 18. As rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant, revenue records will not confer any title to a person. But, at the same time, when no documents were produced by the parties except the revenue records, the court can rely upon the revenue records to declare that the person in whose name the revenue records stand is the owner of the property. In this case, admittedly, no documents were produced by the plaintiff to prove that the suit properties were allotted to the share of Seviyappa Udayar or Seviyappa Udayar got the property through purchase or any other legal means. The only document relied upon by the plaintiff is the settlement deed in her favour. Except the settlement deed Ex.A1, no prior document of title was produced. 19. On the other hand, the revenue records make it clear that the properties are registered in the name of Narayana Udayar from whom the Government purchased the properties under Ex.B1 and allotted the properties to various persons. Except the settlement deed Ex.A1, no prior document of title was produced. 19. On the other hand, the revenue records make it clear that the properties are registered in the name of Narayana Udayar from whom the Government purchased the properties under Ex.B1 and allotted the properties to various persons. Therefore, in the absence of any registered documents of title, the court can confer title on the basis of the revenue records if the parties are able to prove that the person in whose name, the revenue records stand, was the owner of the property for long period. Hence, the fourth substantial questions of law is also answered against the appellant. In the result, the second appeal is dismissed. The judgment and decree of the courts below are confirmed. No costs. The connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed.