S. C. Das, J.— The present second appeal under Section 100 of CPC read with Order XLII Rule 1 of CPC is directed against the judgment and decree dated 10.07.2001, passed by learned Addl. District Judge, North Tripura, Kaila-shahar, passed in Title Appeal No.07 of 1993. The appeal was admitted for hearing on the following substantial questions of law: "(a) Whether the learned First Appellate Court misconstrued the provision of Order 41 Rule 27 CPC in admitting the additional evidence? (b) Whether the learned First appellate Court misconstrued the consequence of the provision of Section 4 of the L. A. Act, regarding transfer by operation of law?" 2. Facts, necessary for disposal of the appeal, may be summarized thus: Paresh Chandra Shil, since deceased and respondent No. 5, Pijush Kanti Shil, together as plaintiffs, brought Title Suit No.30 of 1991 in the Court of Civil Judge, Sr. Division, Kailashahar, seeking declaration of title in the suit land mentioned in Schedule-B of the plaint, recovery of khas possession thereof and for mesne profit, etc. The description of suit land is given in Schedule-B of the plaint reads thus: "Schedule- "B" Description of suit land District-North Tripura, P.S. -Kailashahar, Mouja-Isabpur The Shil Kailashahar, Khatian No.375 within old c.s. plot No. 1319 Corresponding to present c.s. plot No. 1102 at its Northern portion (east-west lengthwise) Land area -0.03 Acres Class-persona path, bounded as below;-North :- BarindraShil South :- Acquired land now belonging to Govt. East :- Gopat (Now public path) West :- Homestead of Paresh Chandra Shil and Pijus Kanti Shil." Plaintiffs, in their pleadings, interalia, stated that they are father and son and they have been living in the land described in Schedule-A of the plaint together in a joint mess, which is their only homestead and the A-Schedule land was purchased by Premananda Shil, the father of plaintiff No. 1 from Bihari Chandra Shil and others by a registered Deed bearing No. 1711 of 1958(Exbt.2) on 06.04.1958 and the entire land of Schedule-A, which also consists of a part of old plot No. 1319, was in exclusive possession of the plaintiffs. The land described in Schedule-A of the plaint reads thus: "Schedule-" A " District-North Tripura, P.S. -Kailashahar, Mouja-Isabpur, Tehesil Kailashahar, Khatian No. 375, old c.s. plot No. 1318 (Northern portion) Corresponding to present c.s. plot No. 1096, Class Basthu and Viti, Area -0.08 Acres. The land described in Schedule-A of the plaint reads thus: "Schedule-" A " District-North Tripura, P.S. -Kailashahar, Mouja-Isabpur, Tehesil Kailashahar, Khatian No. 375, old c.s. plot No. 1318 (Northern portion) Corresponding to present c.s. plot No. 1096, Class Basthu and Viti, Area -0.08 Acres. " It is stated that after the death of Premananda Shil, plaintiff No. 1 made amicable arrangements with his 2 sisters i.e. defendant No.2, Sneha Prova Chanda and Jotsna Chanda, predecessor of defendant Nos.3 to 5, and the entire land of Schedule-A had been under peaceful occupation of the plaintiffs. It is the further case of the plaintiffs that in the year 1990, plaintiffNo.2 purchased a portion of the land of old plot No. 1319 by a registered Deed of Purchase bearing No.2018 of 1990 on 20.02.1990 (Exbt. 10) from Matangini Shil and others and got possession thereof. It is the definite case of the plaintiffs that old plot No.1319 consists of a total area of 0.06 acres, and out of it in the southern portion, 0.03 acres was acquired for construction of embankment on the bank of Laxmicherra vide Gazette Notification dated 20.05.1983 (Exbt.4) and the plaintiffs received the compensation for such acquisition. It is alleged by the plaintiffs that the suit land described in Schedule-B of the plaint is the pathway connecting the house of the plaintiffs with the 'Gopat' bigger pathway, located in the contiguous east of A- Schedule land, which is the personal pathway of the plaintiffs. The defendant No. 1 having no right, title and interest over the suit land of Schedule-B, put a bamboo fencing on the eastern corner of the suit land creating obstruction to the free use of the pathway on 28.07.1985(12th Srabana 1391 B.S.) defying the protest and resistance by the plaintiffs. A village 'baithak' was called on 04.08.1985, which correspondents to 19th Srabana 1391 B.S. and the defendant No. 1 assured to remove all obstruction but ultimately did not comply his assurance rather on 12.01.1986, which correspondents to 27th Poush 1391 B.S., defendant No. 1 planted beetle nut and coconut plants on the suit land, and thereby dispossessed the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs, therefore prayed for decree as aforesaid. 3. The plaintiffs, therefore prayed for decree as aforesaid. 3. Defendant No. 1, Barindra Shil, since deceased, predecessor of the present appellant Nos.1 to 8, contested the suit by filing written statement inter alia stating that the defendant purchased the land from one Prabir Ram Shil on payment of a consideration of Rs.500/- in the year 1972 and got possession thereof. No registered sale deed was executed. The defendants from the date of purchase have been possessing the land without any interference from any corner whatsoever and that the deed executed by Matangini Shil and others in favour of plaintiff No. 1 was a sham paper transaction without delivery of possession and it was created only for the purpose of the suit after the land which was in possession of the plaintiffs was acquired by the Government for construction of embankment. 4. The trial Court, considering the pleadings of the parties, formulated six issues thus: "1. Whether there is any cause of action? 2. Whether the suit is hit by Section 11 of C.P. C. ? 3. Whether the suit is barred by Limitation? 4. Whether the plaintiffs have right, title and interest in the suit land? 5. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to get the decree'as prayed for? 6. To what other reliefs the parties are entitled?" In support of their case, the plaintiff No.2 examined as PW. 1 and plaintiff No. 1 examined himself as PW.2. They also examined two more witnesses, namely, PW.3, Rakhal Das, a Deed Writer, and PW. 4, Pijush Kanti Shil. They also relied on the following documents, which are marked as exhibits as follows: "LIST OF EXHIBITS 1. Finally published khatian bearing No. 375 2. Registered Deed No.1711 of 1958 dt. 6.4.1958 3. Certified copy of map of the land. 4. Gazette Notification May 25 of 1983 regarding Acquisition of land 5. Notice under Section 12 of L.A. Act dated 152.84. 6. Certified copy of Khatian No.608 (old) (2 khatians). 7. Certified copy of order of withdrawal of T.S.2/86. 8. Certified copy of withdrawal prayer dt. 23.9.91. 9. Money(Cost) paying notice dt. 3.12.91. 10. Registered Deed No.2018 of 1990 dt. 202.1990. I1. Signature of P. W. 3 in Exbt.l 0." 5. Defendant No. 1 examined himself as DW. 1 and also examined another witness, namely Harendra Pal as DW.2. No documentary evidence adduced by the defendant. 8. Certified copy of withdrawal prayer dt. 23.9.91. 9. Money(Cost) paying notice dt. 3.12.91. 10. Registered Deed No.2018 of 1990 dt. 202.1990. I1. Signature of P. W. 3 in Exbt.l 0." 5. Defendant No. 1 examined himself as DW. 1 and also examined another witness, namely Harendra Pal as DW.2. No documentary evidence adduced by the defendant. The trial Court decided the issues against the plaintiffs and dismissed the suit. 6. The plaintiffs preferred Title Appeal No.7 of 1993 before the District Court at Kailashahar and the learned Addl. Distric Judge, by the impugned judgment and de dated 24.07.2001, allowed the appeal an accordingly decreed the suit. The learned Addl. District Judge has passed a fantastic judgment reproducing the entire plaint, written statement and Memo, of Appeal, etc. 7. Mr. S. Deb, learned senior counsel, if course of argument submitted that he has seen such a judgment passed by an appellate Court. It is also submitted by learned senior counsel that the appellants on 02.08.1993 filed a petition before the learned Addl. District Judge, Kailashahar under Order XLI Rule 27 of CPC praying for taking into evidence a certified copy of the trace map of the alignment of the acquired land as additional evidence, which could not be produced at the time of trial. No order was passed by the first appellate Court on that petition either accepting or rejecting the prayer of additional evidence. Learned counsel has drawn my attention to the order sheet of the record of the first appellate Court, which does not reflect that any effective order was passed on the prayer so made by the plaintiff appellants. It is further submitted by learned senior counsel, Mr. Deb that the total area of plot No. 1319 was acquired by the State Government by Notification and according to the plaintiffs they have received compensation for the acquisition. Exbt.4, the Gazette Notification, clearly reflects that plot No. 1319 was acquired in full and after such acquisition no land left behind. Under such circumstances, the finding of the trial Court on the relevant issue was justified and based on sound appreciation of the evidence on record. The first appellate Court arrived at a finding on surmise based on inadmissible evidence, and therefore, the judgment and decree passed by the learned District Judge in the first appeal is liable to be interfered and set aside. 8. The first appellate Court arrived at a finding on surmise based on inadmissible evidence, and therefore, the judgment and decree passed by the learned District Judge in the first appeal is liable to be interfered and set aside. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel, Mr. Biswas appearing for the respondents has submitted that the trial Court failed to decide whether the entire land of plot No. 1319 measuring 0.06 acres was acquired or whether a part of it i.e. 0.03 acres was acquired. That was the crux of the suit but there was no decision on that issue. Learned counsel, Mr. Biswas with his all fairness further submitted that the additional evidence was not accepted/recorded according to law, and therefore, the case may be remanded back to the Court below for recording the additional evidence. 9. On going through the impugned judgment passed by the trial Court, I find that the trial Court decided all the issues taking into consideration the evidence on record and the decision is based on sound, appreciation of evidence on fact and law. The first appellate Court revised the judgment only taking into consideration the petition dated 02.08.1993 filed by the plaintiffs for taking into evidence a certified copy of the trace map of the alignment of the acquired land. The records of first appellate Court shows that on the date of filing of the petition under Order XLI Rule 27 of CPC i.e. on 02.08.1993 the first appellate Court passed the following order: "2.8.93 Ld. Counsel for the appellant Mr. S. P. Datta Purakayastha filed D. C. F. Mr. Purakayastha also submitted a prayer U/O 41 Rule 27 CPC and under Section 107 CPC and by a firisti filed a copy of trace map. Keep these with case record. Send the case record to the Sheristadar, Dist. Judge's Court, North Tripura, Kailashahar to report whether the case is properly stamped or not. Fix 4.8.93 for report of Sheristadar." On careful scrutiny of the records, it is found that subsequent to that order dated 02.08.1993, no order was passed in respect of the petition filed by the plaintiffs (appellants) for accepting the additional evidence. 10. Section 107 of CPC prescribes powers of the appellate Court. Fix 4.8.93 for report of Sheristadar." On careful scrutiny of the records, it is found that subsequent to that order dated 02.08.1993, no order was passed in respect of the petition filed by the plaintiffs (appellants) for accepting the additional evidence. 10. Section 107 of CPC prescribes powers of the appellate Court. The Order XLI Rules 27 and 28 of CPC deals with the procedure regarding production of additional evidence and mode of taking such, additional evidence respectively, which reads' thus: "27. Production of additional evidence in Appellate Court. (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. (2) Wherever additional evidence is allowed to be produced by an Appellate Court, the Court shall record the reason for its admission. 28. Mode of taking additional evidence-Wherever additional evidence is allowed to be produced, the Appellate Court may either take such evidence or direct the Court from whose decree the appeal is preferred, or any other subordinate Court, to take such evidence and to send it when taken to the Appellate Court." 11. Mere filing of a petition with certain document for accepting it as additional evidence does not necessary amount to acceptances of that document as an evidence on record. Admittedly, the copy of the map filed on 02.08.1993 is not a part of the evidence, and therefore, the decision of the learned first appellate Court relying on that inadmissible evidence cannot sustain and is liable to be interfered. The copy of that map is found at page 151 of the record of the first appellate Court. Exbt. Admittedly, the copy of the map filed on 02.08.1993 is not a part of the evidence, and therefore, the decision of the learned first appellate Court relying on that inadmissible evidence cannot sustain and is liable to be interfered. The copy of that map is found at page 151 of the record of the first appellate Court. Exbt. A, the Gazette Notification in respect of acquisition of land clearly reflects that the entire land of plot No. 1319 was acquired and compensation paid to the plaintiffs. The copy of the trace map cannot supersede the Gazette Notification of acquisition of land. The suit was filed in the year 1991. In the meantime, 21 years have already been elapsed. The litigation must see an end. I find no justification to remand the case for accepting additional evidence for the reason that even if the additional evidence is recorded the decision shall remain the same. We may gainfully quote an observation of the Apex Court in the case ofGurdev Kaur & Ors. Vs. Kaki & Ors. reported in 2006 AIR SCW 2404 : (2007) 1 SCC 546 . The Court observed thus- "In judicial hierarchy finality is absolutely important because that gives certainty to the law. Even in the interest of litigants themselves it may not be unreasonable to draw a line in respect of the two different categories of litigation where procedure will say at a certain state that questions of fact have been decided by the lower Courts and the matter should be allowed to rest where it lies without any further appeal. This may be somewhat harsh to an individual litigant; but, in the larger interest of the administration of justice, this view is juristically sound and pragmatically wise." 12. For fair appreciation, I have also gone through the evidence on record. The plaintiffs' definite case regarding the cause of action is that the defendants first dispossessed them putting a bamboo fencing round the B-Schedule land on 28.07.1985, which corresponds to 12thSrabans 1391 B.S., and thereafter, a meeting was held on 04.08.1985, which corresponds to 19th Srabana, 1391 B.S. It is the further case of the plaintiffs that the defendants planted beetle nut and coconut plants on the suit land on 12.01.1986, which corresponds to 27th Poush, 1391 B.S. In his deposition PW. 1, the plaintiff No.2 simply stated that they were disposed from the land during February, 1983. 1, the plaintiff No.2 simply stated that they were disposed from the land during February, 1983. P W. 2(plaintiff No. 1) stated that they were dispossessed from the .suit land on 23rd of Poush, 1391 B.S.PW4 slated that he was present in the village meeting and the meeting was held in the month of August, 1985. The plaintiffs, therefore, failed to prove their dispossession from the suit land Admittedly, the acquisition of land of plot no. 1319 was made in the year 1983. Exbt, 4 clearly shows that entire land of plot No. 1319 was acquired, whereas, plaintiff No. 2 claimed to have purchased 0.03 acres of land of said plot from Matangini Shil, etc. by Exbt. 10 in the year 1990. The trial Court considering the evidence on record in its entirety rightly held that the plaintiffs failed to prove that C.S. Plot No. 1319 was not wholly acquired and that possession of any part of that plot was handed over to them by their vendors on the date of their purchase in the year 1990. In the plaint the plaintiffs clearly stated the date of their dispossession, which is in the year 1985 and 1986, whereas the purchase deed(Exbt. 10) is of the year 1990 i.e. admittedly after the date of alleged dispossession. The trial Court, therefore, rightly held that the plaintiffs failed to prove the issues in respect of their right, title and interest and possession over any part of the land of plot No. 1319 after acquisition of that plot of land made by the State Government. 13. .The appeal, therefore, is allowed with cost. The judgment and decree passed by the first appellate Court dated 10.07.2001 in Title Appeal No.7 of 1993 is set aside and the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court in T.S. No. 30 of 1991 is upheld. 14. Send back the LC records along with a copy of the judgment. RSA No. 01 of 2002 (D/O) Dated 26.06.2012 Record has been placed with the note of the Registry that the date of judgment and decree of the first appellate Court (Addl. 14. Send back the LC records along with a copy of the judgment. RSA No. 01 of 2002 (D/O) Dated 26.06.2012 Record has been placed with the note of the Registry that the date of judgment and decree of the first appellate Court (Addl. District Judge, North Tripura, Kailashahar), passed in Title Appeal No. 07 of 1993, which has been challenged in this appeal, is 24.07.2001, whereas, in the Memorandum of Appeal filed by the appellants, the date has been mentioned as 10.07.2001, and therefore, in the judgment passed by this Court, the date of the first appellate Court's judgment has been mentioned accordingly as 10.7.2001 and that is a mistake, apparent on the face of the record. Learned senior counsel, Mr. S. Deb for the appellants and learned counsel, Mr. D. K. Biswas for the respondent are present. Heard learned counsel of both side. The mistake is so apparent on the face of the record that it may be corrected as per provision of Section 152 of CPC. Learned counsels also prayed for making the corrections. The words and figures — "judgment and decree dated 10.07.2001 passed by learned Addl. District Judge, North Tripura, Kailashahar in Title Appeal No. 07 of 1993" -shall be read as — "judgment and decree dated 24.07.2001. passed by learned Addl. District Judge, North Tripura, Kailashahar, in Title Appeal No. 07 of 1993" - - wherever it appears, in the judgment dated 12.06.2012, passed by this Court in RSA No. 01 of 2002. This order shall form a part of the judgment dated 12.06.2012. _____________