Judgment 1. The fifth defendant in O.S.No.1511 of 2004, on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court/Trial Court, Salem, is the appellant herein. 2. The plaintiffs/respondents 1 to 7 filed the suit for partition of their 309/1400 shares in the suit property. 3. The Trial Court decreed the suit. Challenging the same, the fifth defendant filed A.S.No.176 of 2007, on the file of the II Addl. Sub Court, Salem/Lower Appellate Court. The Lower Appellate Court also dismissed the Appeal. Aggrieved by the same, the present second Appeal is filed. 4. The case of the plaintiffs, is as follows:- i) The suit property originally belonged to Perumal Gounder. The first defendant is the widow of Perumal Gounder and they had Narayanan and the defendants 2 to 6, as their children. The said Narayanan predeceased his father-Perumal Gounder. The first plaintiff is the widow of Narayanan, who had two wives and through his first wife/first plaintiff, the plaintiffs 2 to 5 were born, and through his second wife, the plaintiffs 6 to 8 were born. Therefore, the suit was filed by the plaintiffs, claiming their share in the suit property left by Perumal Gounder, stating that Perumal Gounder died intestate, and, they are entitled to claim 309/1400 share in the suit property. 5. The appellant/fifth defendant filed a written statement, stating that Perumal Gounder, executed a Will in respect of the suit property, in favour of the fifth and sixth defendants and after the death of Perumal Gounder, the fifth and sixth defendants took possession of the suit property, and therefore, the plaintiffs are not entitled to claim partition. 6. The first defendant filed a memo, submitting to the decree, being passed. The defendants 2, 4, 6 and 7 and 8 remained ex parte. 7. The seventh and eighth defendants are the purchasers from the third defendant in respect of item 1 of the suit property. The third defendant contested the suit and the fifth defendant did not participate in the suit. 8. On the basis of the above pleadings, the following issues were framed by the Trial Court:- i) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to 309/1400 shares in the suit property ii) Whether the father of the fifth defendant had executed a Will in favour of the defendants 5 and 6 in respect of the suit properties. 8. On the basis of the above pleadings, the following issues were framed by the Trial Court:- i) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to 309/1400 shares in the suit property ii) Whether the father of the fifth defendant had executed a Will in favour of the defendants 5 and 6 in respect of the suit properties. iii) Whether the third defendant is entitled to 8500 sq.ft in S.No.106 iv) Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties and To what relief, if any, are the plaintiffs entitled to? 9. The Trial Court, on the side of the plaintiffs, examined P.W.1/first plaintiff and marked six exhibits, and, on the side of the defendants, the third defendant was examined as D.W.1, and another witness was examined as D.W.2. and Exs.B.1 and B.2 were marked. A Commissioner was appointed and he filed a report and plan, which were marked as C1 and C2. 10. The Trial Court tried issues ii and iii together and held that in O.S.No.1004 of 1994, filed by the seventh and eighth defendants against the third defendant and two others, the third defendant questioned the Will executed by Perumal Gounder in favour of the first defendant. In the said suit, (i.e., O.S.No.1004 of 1994), the plaintiffs were not parties, and therefore, even though there was a compromise entered into between the parties in O.S.No.1004 of 1994, the same is not binding on the plaintiffs, and the third and fifth defendants did not produce any Will to prove their case, and, answered issues ii) and iii) against the third and fifth defendants. The Trial Court also tried issues i), iv) and v) together and held that the seventh and eighth defendants are proper parties and the parties admitted that the property originally belonged to Perumal Gounder, and the plaintiffs and the defendants 1 to 6 are the legal representatives of Perumal Gounder and therefore, the plaintiffs are entitled to 309/1400 shares in the suit property and decreed the suit. 11. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court, the fifth defendant filed First Appeal before the Lower Appellate Court. In the First Appeal, the appellant filed two applications, viz., I.A.No.72 of 2008 and I.A.No.73 of 2008. 11. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court, the fifth defendant filed First Appeal before the Lower Appellate Court. In the First Appeal, the appellant filed two applications, viz., I.A.No.72 of 2008 and I.A.No.73 of 2008. I.A.No.72 of 2008, was filed under Order 41, Rule 27 of C.P.C, seeking permission of the Court to receive the Will, alleged to have been executed in her favour and the sixth defendant by Perumal Gounder and I.A.No.73 of 2008, was filed to remand the suit to the Trial Court, to enable the appellant to prove the Will. 12. The Lower Appellate Court dismissed both the applications, by holding that no acceptable reason was stated by the appellant to receive the Will as additional evidence and no reason was stated for not producing the same during trial and having failed to prosecute the suit before the Trial Court, it is not open to the appellant to file the applications before the Lower Appellate Court. I.A.No.73 of 2008 was also dismissed by the Lower Appellate Court, which was filed to remand the suit to the Trial Court. The Lower Appellate Court held that the appellant did not state in her written statement anything about the Will executed in favour of the seventh and eighth defendants and P.W.1 was not cross-examined by the appellant and she has not filed the original Will into Court along with the application in I.A.No.72 of 2008, and having failed to prosecute the case, she cannot contend that she was not given any opportunity to produce the Will before the Trial Court. The Lower Appellate Court also held that the plaintiffs are entitled to the share claimed by them, as there is no dispute regarding the relationship between the parties and the plaintiffs are also the legal representatives of Perumal Gounder, the Trial Court has rightly decreed the suit, and dismissed the Appeal. Aggrieved by the same, the present Second Appeal is filed. 13. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant that the Trial Court erred in dismissing I.A.No.72 of 2008, filed under Order 41, Rule 27 of Code of Civil Procedure, without properly appreciating the provisions contained therein. Aggrieved by the same, the present Second Appeal is filed. 13. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant that the Trial Court erred in dismissing I.A.No.72 of 2008, filed under Order 41, Rule 27 of Code of Civil Procedure, without properly appreciating the provisions contained therein. The learned counsel submitted that the Will was handed over to the counsel, who appeared before the Trial Court and the Will was acted upon and loan was obtained by the appellant/fifth defendant, and therefore, she was not aware whether the Will was produced before the Trial Court by his advocate or not. Hence, the Will executed by Perumal Gounder in favour of the appellant and the loan documents, are to be received as additional evidence and for that purpose, I.A.No.72 of 2008 was filed, and without properly appreciating the same and the contention of the appellant, the Lower Appellate Court dismissed I.A.No.72 of 2008. 14. The learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that the Trial Court ought to have given an opportunity to the appellant to prove the Will, and, if the Will is proved, the plaintiffs cannot claim any share in the suit property. The learned counsel also submitted that having regard to the additional evidence sought to be filed by the appellant, the Lower Appellate Court ought to have remanded the case to the Trial Court for proving the Will. 15. On the basis of the above submissions, the following Substantial Question of Law arises for consideration in this Second Appeal:- "Whether the Trial Court erred in dismissing the application filed under Order 41, Rule 27CPC? 16. In this case, there is no dispute regarding the relationship between the parties. It is the specific case of the appellant that Perumal Gounder executed a Will in her favour and the sixth defendant, and under the Will, the suit properties were bequeathed in their favour, and therefore, the plaintiffs cannot claim any share over the same. But, due to unfortunate circumstances, the Will was not marked before the Trial Court and the Will was given to the Advocate and he did not mark the Will, and therefore, one more opportunity may be given to the appellant to prove her case. 17. I am unable to accept the contentions of the learned counsel for the appellant. But, due to unfortunate circumstances, the Will was not marked before the Trial Court and the Will was given to the Advocate and he did not mark the Will, and therefore, one more opportunity may be given to the appellant to prove her case. 17. I am unable to accept the contentions of the learned counsel for the appellant. As rightly held by the Lower Appellate Court, that in the absence of any Will in favour of the appellant, the plaintiffs are entitled to 309/1400 share in the suit property, and that is also not disputed by the learned counsel for the appellant. It is also an admitted fact, except, that by filing a written statement, the appellant did not take part in the proceedings before the Trial Court, and the suit was contested by the third defendant, and seventh and eighth defendants, who are the purchasers from the third defendant also remained ex parte. The first defendant filed a memo, submitting to the decree. The third defendant relied upon the Will executed in favour of the first defendant in support of his case, but, he has not produced the same. Therefore, as rightly held by the Trial Court, in O.S.No.1004 of 1994, the plaintiffs herein were not parties, and hence, the compromise, if any, entered into between the parties in that suit, will not bind the plaintiffs in the present suit. The fifth defendant/appellant herein filed the written statement, stating that there was a Will in her favour, but she did not take any steps to examine herself, or, to examine the attestators to prove the Will. 18. The Lower Appellate Court also rightly held that despite opportunity given to the fifth defendant/appellant herein, she did not avail the opportunity by producing the Will, and therefore, she is not entitled to seek indulgence of the Court to file the documents, as additional evidence. 19. 18. The Lower Appellate Court also rightly held that despite opportunity given to the fifth defendant/appellant herein, she did not avail the opportunity by producing the Will, and therefore, she is not entitled to seek indulgence of the Court to file the documents, as additional evidence. 19. According to me, additional evidence can be received, only under certain circumstances, as contemplated under Order 41, Rule 27 Code of Civil Procedure, and the additional evidence which is sought to be produced before the Lower Appellate Court must have been filed before the Trial Court and that was refused to be admitted, or, despite due diligence, such evidence could not be filed before the Trial Court, or, whether the Lower Appellate Court requires any document to enable it to pronounce judgment, and in those circumstances only, the additional evidence can be let in. It cannot be contended that the document was filed before the Trial Court, but, it was not allowed to be marked. The appellant also contended that despite due indulgence, she was not able to prove the Will. The third condition is that when the document is required for pronouncing judgment, the document can be received, as additional evidence. The third contingency will arise only when the Court feels that for proper judgment, the document is to be produced and the same cannot be invoked to support the case of the appellant or respondent. 20. In this case, the document, which was sought to be produced, as additional evidence, was not necessary for the purpose of delivering judgment, and the document is only to support the case of the appellant, and in that case, unless, the appellant satisfies the requirements contemplated under Order 41, Rule 27 a, aa of C.P.C., he cannot seek indulgence of the Court to receive the document as additional evidence. These aspects were properly considered by the Lower Appellate Court and the application filed under Order 41, Rule 27 was rightly rejected and dismissed the Appeal. Having regard to the fact that there is no dispute regarding the relationship between the parties, the Lower Appellate Court rightly dismissed the Appeal and I do not find any infirmity in the judgment and decree of the Lower Appellate Court and the Substantial Question of Law is also answered against the appellant. 21. Having regard to the fact that there is no dispute regarding the relationship between the parties, the Lower Appellate Court rightly dismissed the Appeal and I do not find any infirmity in the judgment and decree of the Lower Appellate Court and the Substantial Question of Law is also answered against the appellant. 21. In the result, the Second Appeal is dismissed, by confirming the judgments and decrees of the Courts below. No costs. Consequently, connected M.P. is closed.