Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 712 (KAR)

MALIYAPPA SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS. v. MUNIYAPPA

2013-06-20

K.N.KESHAVANARAYANA

body2013
JUDGMENT K.N. KESHAVANARAYANA, J.-This appeal by the Legal Representatives of the plaintiff in O.S. No. 7920/2004 on the file of the XVII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore, is directed against the judgment and order dated 03.12.2011 passed therein dismissing the suit filed for the relief of declaration of title and permanent injunction. 2. The subject matter of the suit is the land bearing Survey No. 18/3 measuring 1 acre situated in Kadabeesanahalli Village, Varthur Hobli, Bangalore East Taluk, Bangalore Urban District. Maliappa, s/o. Hullurappa was the original plaintiff. He died during the pendency of the suit and thereafter his wife and children, who are the appellants herein, came on record and continued the suit. The original plaintiff filed the suit seeking the following reliefs:- (a) Declaration, declaring that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property; (b) permanent injunction as consequential relief and thereby restrain the defendants, their agents, henchmen or anybody claiming any right under or through them, from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property by the plaintiff, in any manner; and (c) for costs and such other relief or reliefs as this Hon'ble Court deems fit to grant in the circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity. 3. The plaintiff inter alia contended that he purchased the suit schedule property bearing Survey No. 18/3 from one Muniyannappa under the registered sale deed dated 11.11.1959; that on the date of the sale he was placed in possession of the land; that ever since then, he is in possession and enjoyment of the same; that at the time of executing sale deed on 11.11.1959, though description of the property had been clearly identified through boundary mentioned in the sale deed, however, while mentioning the survey number, it was wrongly mentioned as 18/4 instead of 18/3, but actual physical possession of the property given to the plaintiff was Sy. No. 18/3; that he continued in possession of Survey No. 18/3 and subsequently under the registered sale deed dated 02.11.1971 the plaintiff sold the suit schedule property to one Nanjappa and again under the registered sale deed dated 15.07.1978, he repurchased the property from Nanjappa; that thus, the plaintiff continued as owner in possession of the suit schedule property; that though the revenue authorities were expected to make changes in the revenue records pursuant to the sale deeds, it was not done properly and as there were some mistakes in identifying the survey numbers, the authorities wrongly recorded the name of the plaintiff in column Nos. 9 & 12(2) in respect of Survey No. 18/4 instead of 18/3. 9 & 12(2) in respect of Survey No. 18/4 instead of 18/3. Therefore, an application was filed before the Tahsildar, Bangalore, South Taluk, for conducting survey of the land and to identify the property in actual physical possession of the plaintiff and thereafter to rectify the entries in the revenue records; that the said application was registered as RRT (DIS) No. 11/98-99 and survey was conducted on 20.08.1998, wherein the surveyor prepared a detailed sketch and on survey, it was found that the plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment of the property bearing Survey No. 18/3; that accordingly, entries in the revenue records were changed; that subsequently, the Bangalore Development Authority acquired a portion of the land measuring 2 guntas out of the portion in occupation of the plaintiff for formation of Ring Road and in respect of the said acquisition, compensation was also paid to the plaintiff; that thus, the title of the plaintiff in respect of Survey No. 18/3 was recognized, as such, the plaintiff is the lawful owner in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property; that in that capacity, the plaintiff put-up constructions on a portion of the suit schedule property abutting ring road and leased them for commercial purposes to different tenants; that in the remaining portion, after sinking a bore-well he is carrying on agricultural operations and for that purpose, he has installed a pump-set to which he obtained electrical connections; that in the meanwhile, the defendants filed revision petition before the Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore Urban District, against the orders passed by the Tahsildar and the Deputy Commissioner by order dated 20.09.2002 set aside the order passed by the Tahsildar and directed the Tahsildar to take appropriate action in accordance with law; that however, the Tahsildar has not taken any further action as directed by the Deputy Commissioner; that Defendant Nos. 6 & 7 claiming to be Power of Attorney holders of certain persons, filed a suit in O.S. No. 3671/2004 against the plaintiffs for the relief of permanent injunction in respect of land bearing Survey No. 18/3 measuring 391/2, guntas alleging that they are in physical possession and enjoyment of the said property; that the property claimed by Defendant Nos. 6 & 7 claiming to be Power of Attorney holders of certain persons, filed a suit in O.S. No. 3671/2004 against the plaintiffs for the relief of permanent injunction in respect of land bearing Survey No. 18/3 measuring 391/2, guntas alleging that they are in physical possession and enjoyment of the said property; that the property claimed by Defendant Nos. 6 & 7 as Power of Attorney holders of Lingappa and others is situated on the western side of the ring road and not referable to the property bearing Survey No. 18/3, which is in possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff; that Defendant Nos. 6 & 7 and others started denying the title of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property; that in the meanwhile, the plaintiff assailed the order of the Deputy Commissioner by filing a writ petition before this Court in W.P. No. 41612/2002 and the said writ petition is pending; that in the meanwhile, the Tahsildar passed order dated 23.09.2004 which is challenged before the Revenue Appellate Tribunal; that the defendants who have no manner of right, title or interest in the suit schedule property, are trying to interfere with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same and since they are denying the title of the plaintiff, it has become necessary for the plaintiff to institute the suit for declaration of his title and the relief of permanent injunction to protect his possession. 4. Defendant Nos. 6 & 7 appeared before the Court and filed their written statement, wherein they denied the case of the plaintiff. They denied the allegations that the plaintiff purchased the suit schedule property bearing Survey No. 18/3 and that he is in possession of the same. 4. Defendant Nos. 6 & 7 appeared before the Court and filed their written statement, wherein they denied the case of the plaintiff. They denied the allegations that the plaintiff purchased the suit schedule property bearing Survey No. 18/3 and that he is in possession of the same. They further contended that the land bearing Survey No. 18/3 measuring 1 acre 11/2 guntas was originally owned by one Subbaiah, s/o Nanjappa, who sold the same in favour of one Venkatappa @ Annaiah through registered sale deed dated 12.09.1960 and the said Venkatappa @ Annaiah in turn sold the said property to one Sabulal, s/o Abdul Sabi under the registered sale deed dated 11.06.1962 and thereafter, Sabulal sold the same in favour of one Lingappa under the registered sale deed dated 15.04.1967 and placed the said Lingappa in possession of the said property and thereby the said Lingappa became the owner in possession of the land bearing Survey No. 18/3 and thereafter, his name was also entered in the revenue records. They further contended that the total extent of land bearing Survey No. 18/3 was 1 acre 24 guntas including Karab land of 1 gunta and out of the said extent, Lingappa and his sons were absolute owners of 1 acre 11/2 guntas while remaining land was owned by the family of one Nanjundappa, whobequeathed the property to his family members namely Venkataramaiah, Padmaraju, N.R. Kumuda, N. Dhanalakshmi, S.N. Vasanth Kumar. They further contended that the said Lingappa and his sons sold the suit schedule property and two other properties in their favour ( Defendant Nos. 5 & 6) under deed dated 29.02.1996 and the said Lingappa and sons also executed a General Power of Attorney in their (Defendant Nos. 5 & 6) favour on the same day, which was also registered in the office of the Sub-Registrar and placed them in possession of the suit schedule property as prospective buyers from Lingappa and at no point of time, the plaintiff was in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. They further contended that the original owner of Survey No. 18/3 namely, Subbaiah sold the remaining extent of 211/2 guntas to one Sallurappa, who in turn sold it to Nanjundapa and after the death of Nanjundappa, his family members sold 211/2 guntas in Survey No. 18/3 alongwith the land in Survey No. 18/2 in favour of Defendant Nos. They further contended that the original owner of Survey No. 18/3 namely, Subbaiah sold the remaining extent of 211/2 guntas to one Sallurappa, who in turn sold it to Nanjundapa and after the death of Nanjundappa, his family members sold 211/2 guntas in Survey No. 18/3 alongwith the land in Survey No. 18/2 in favour of Defendant Nos. 5 & 6 under the agreement of sale and thus, they are in possession of both Survey Nos. 18/2 and 18/3. They further contended that the plaintiff was in no way connected to the suit schedule property since he seems to be the owner of 18/4 measuring 1 acre 16 guntas. Hence, the plaintiff has no right to claim Survey No. 18/3. Therefore, they sought for dismissal of the suit. 5. In the light of the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed the following issues:- (vernacular matter not given) 6. During the trial, the original plaintiff Maliappa himself examined as PW.1 and he relied on documentary evidence-Exs. P1 to P27. The 6th defendant Y.C. Ramareddy was examined as DW.1 and they relied on Exs.D1 & D2. 7. After hearing both sides and on appreciation of oral as well as documentary evidence, the Court below by the judgment under appeal answered Issue Nos. 1, 2 & 4 in the negative and on Issue No. 3, the trial Court held that the description of the property in the schedule is not proper. In the light of the findings recorded on these issues, the trial Court held that the plaintiff has failed to prove that he is the owner in possession of the suit schedule property, therefore, he is not entitled for any reliefs sought in the plaint. In that view of the matter, the suit came to be dismissed. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the legal representatives of the original plaintiff are in appeal before this Court. 8. In this appeal, the appellants have filed I.A. Nos. I/2012 and 5/2012 seeking production of additional documents. They have also filed I. A. No. 7/2012, 1/2013 and 2/2013 for appointment of a Court Commissioner. They have also filed application-I.A. No. 3/2013 under Order 2, Rule 2 r/w Order 23, Rule 1 of CPC seeking withdrawal of the appeal as well as the suit with liberty to file a fresh suit in respect of the subject matter on the same cause of action. They have also filed application-I.A. No. 3/2013 under Order 2, Rule 2 r/w Order 23, Rule 1 of CPC seeking withdrawal of the appeal as well as the suit with liberty to file a fresh suit in respect of the subject matter on the same cause of action. 9. Heard Sri. P. Chandrashekar, Advocate for Sri. Ravi B. Naik & Associates appearing for the appellants both on the appeal and the applications, Sri. S.T. Mahesh, Advocate appearing for Respondent No. 1 and Sri. P.M. Rajeshwara, Advocate appearing for Respondents 6 & 7. 10. During hearing, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that IA No. 7/2012 and I.A. No. 2/2013 filed for appointment of a Court commissioner be dismissed as not pressed, since I.A. No. 1/2013 for the same relief has been filed. 11. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties on both sides, the points that arise for consideration in this appeal are,- (i) Whether the appellants have made-out sufficient grounds for grant of permission to withdraw the suit? (ii) Whether the Legal Representatives of the plaintiff have proved their title to the possession of the suit schedule property? (iii) Whether the Court below is not justified in dismissing the suit of the plaintiff? 12. Before dealing with the merits of the appeal and other applications, let me first consider whether the plaintiff is entitled for permission to withdraw the suit with liberty as sought in Application-I.A.3/2013. The application is filed under Order 2, Rule 2 r/w Order 23, Rule 1 and Section 151 of CPC. 12. Before dealing with the merits of the appeal and other applications, let me first consider whether the plaintiff is entitled for permission to withdraw the suit with liberty as sought in Application-I.A.3/2013. The application is filed under Order 2, Rule 2 r/w Order 23, Rule 1 and Section 151 of CPC. In the affidavit filed in support of the application, apart from reiterating some of the averments made in the plaint, it has been stated that subsequently, the plaintiff learnt acquisition of 8 guntas of land in Survey No. 18/3, 1 acre 1 gunta in Survey No. 18/6 and to an extent of 1 acre 18 guntas in Survey No. 18/4 by KIADB and that the acquisition proceedings have been initiated without issuing notice to the appellant nor they were afforded an opportunity and that in the meanwhile, land in possession and enjoyment of the appellant measuring 1 acre has been assigned new Survey No. as 18/6 and in the light of this subsequent development, the appellants have contended that they intend to establish these factors before the competent Court by filing a fresh suit and in this view of the matter, they have sought for permission to withdraw the suit with liberty. 13. The Application-I.A.3/2013 is seriously opposed by the respondents-defendants. One of the beneficiary of the acquisition by KIADB has been impleaded as Respondent No. 13 in this appeal. Respondent No. 13 has filed serious objections to the application. Order 23 Rule 1 of CPC no doubt empowers the plaintiff in any suit to abandon the suit or abandon a part of claim at any time. As per sub-rule (4) of Rule I, where the plaintiff abandons his suit or abadons his part of a claim, he would be precluded from instituting any fresh suit in respect of such subject matter or such portion of the claim. However, sub-rule (3) vests discretion in the Court to grant permission to the plaintiff to withdraw such suit or such part of the claim with liberty to institute a fresh suit in respect of the subject matter of such suit or such portion of the claim, if the Court is satisfied that the suit must fail by reason of some formal defect, or that there are sufficient grounds for allowing the plaintiff to institute a fresh suit for the subject matter of a suit or part of a claim. Therefore, in order to seek liberty to institute a fresh suit, the plaintiff will have to satisfy the two conditions set down in Clauses (a) and (b) of sub-rule (3) of Rule I. It is not the contention of the appellants that the suit filed by the original plaintiff must fail by reason of some formal defect. Therefore Clause (a) of sub-rule (3) is not attracted. Under Clause (b), such permission can be granted provided there are sufficient grounds for allowing the plaintiff to file a fresh suit. 14. Having read the contents of the affidavit filed in support of the application and after having heard the learned counsel for the appellants as well as learned counsel for the respondents, I am of the considered opinion that the appellants have not made-out any grounds muchless sufficient grounds to grant such permission. What has been pleaded in the affidavit for seeking such permission is that subsequently some acquisition proceedings have been initiated by KIADB, to which the appellants are not parties and that the land in their possession has been subsequently assigned a new Survey No. 18/6 and these factors they intend to establish in a fresh suit. From the very averments, it is clear that they are all subsequent events said to have occurred subsequent to filing of suit, therefore, the said reason cannot constitute as sufficient ground for granting the permission as sought in the application. In that view of the matter, I find no substance in the said application and therefore, the application filed in I.A. 3/2013 has no merit and accordingly, it is rejected. 15. As noticed supra, the plaintiff claims title to the suit schedule property bearing Survey No. 18/3 measuring 1 acre through the sale deed dated 11.11.1959 executed by Muniyannappa in his favour. The said sale deed is marked as Ex.P1. The trial Court during the course of judgment referring to the title deeds relied upon by the plaintiffs has recorded a finding that the title deeds produced by the plaintiff do not establish that he purchased the land bearing Survey No. 18/3. On the other hand, under the sale deed-Ex.P1, the plaintiff purchased the land bearing Survey No. 18/4. The plaintiff has produced the certified copy of the Encumbrance Certificate issued by the office of the sub-registrar, Bangalore South Taluk as per Ex.P7. On the other hand, under the sale deed-Ex.P1, the plaintiff purchased the land bearing Survey No. 18/4. The plaintiff has produced the certified copy of the Encumbrance Certificate issued by the office of the sub-registrar, Bangalore South Taluk as per Ex.P7. The trial Court on perusal of Ex.P7, has noticed that Muniyannappa, the vendor of original plaintiff purchased the land bearing Survey No. 18/4 measuring 1 acre 23 guntas from one Motamma under the sale deed date 05.07.1957. Ex.P3 is the sale deed dated 13.09.1971 whereunder, Maliappa, the plaintiff sold the land which he purchased from Muniyannappa, in favour of Nanjappa mentioning the number of the land sold as Survey No. 18/4. Ex.P2 is the sale deed dated 15.07.1978, whereunder Nanjappa to whom the original plaintiff had sold land bearing Survey No. 18/4 under Ex.P3, resold the said property to Maliappa. However, in the schedule to the said sale deed, the land sold has been mentioned as Survey No. 18/2. By placing reliance on Exs. P1 to P3 and also the entries made in Encumbrance Certificate-Ex.P7, the Court below has recorded a finding that these documents do not clearly establish that the original plaintiff purchased the land bearing Survey No. 18/3. On the other hand, the title deeds produced would establish that he purchased the land bearing Survey No. 18/4. In that view of the matter, the trial Court came to the conclusion that the plaintiff cannot be declared as the owner of land bearing Survey No. 18/3 as sought in the suit and consequently, the said suit came to be dismissed. 16. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant and on perusal of the contents of Exs.P1 to P3, which are registered documents, I find no error in the findings recorded by the trial Court as to the title of the original plaintiff to the suit schedule property. As noticed supra, the vendor of the original plaintiff acquired title only to land bearing Survey No. 18/4 under the registered sale deed dated 05.07.1957. Under Ex.P1, the said Muniyannappa sold 1 acre of land in Survey No. 18/4 to the original plaintiff. That was the land which the original plaintiff sold to Nanjappa under Ex.P3 and subsequently, under Ex.P2, the original plaintiff repurchased the very same property, though there appears to be a mistake in mentioning the survey number. Under Ex.P1, the said Muniyannappa sold 1 acre of land in Survey No. 18/4 to the original plaintiff. That was the land which the original plaintiff sold to Nanjappa under Ex.P3 and subsequently, under Ex.P2, the original plaintiff repurchased the very same property, though there appears to be a mistake in mentioning the survey number. Therefore, the documentary evidence produced by the plaintiff as per Exs. P1 to P3 would not establish that the plaintiff purchased the land bearing Survey No. 18/3. On the other hand, these documentary evidence would establish that the original plaintiff purchased 1 acre of land in Survey No. 18/4. Ex.P4 is the Mutation Extract in respect of MR No. 19/1998-99, wherein the name of the original plaintiff was entered in respect of Survey No. 18/3 as per the orders of the Tahsildar. It is an undisputed fact that the order of the Tahsildar, pursuant to which such mutation entry was made, was subsequently set aside by the Deputy Commissioner and later affirmed by this Court in the writ petition. Therefore, the entry as found in Ex.P4 has no relevance and no reliance can be placed thereon. Exs. P8 & P9 are the RTC extracts in respect of Survey No. 18/3 for the year 1998-99 and 1999-2000 showing the name of Maliappa both in Column Nos. 9 & 12. However, as per the endorsement in Column No. 10 of Exs. P8 & P9 the names of Maliappa is entered in the RTC pursuant to the orders of the Tahsildar and the mutation entry No. 19/ 1998-99 as indicated in Ex.P4. In view of the fact that the orders of the Tahsildar were subsequently set side, the entries found in Ex.P8 & P9 in respect of Survey No. 18/3 cannot prove the possession of the suit schedule property by the plaintiff. Exs. P. 10 to P. 14 are the RTC extracts in respect of Survey No. 18/6 for the subsequent years. Therefore, those entries do not relate to suit property bearing Survey No. 18/3. Exs. P15, P16, P17 & P18 are the documents relating to Department of Survey and Land Records. These documents refer to Survey No. 18/6 and not 18/3, similarly Ex.P18. Ex.P19 to P22 are the receipts for payment of land revenue by original plaintiff. However, these receipts do not indicate as to in respect of which property revenue has been paid. Exs. P15, P16, P17 & P18 are the documents relating to Department of Survey and Land Records. These documents refer to Survey No. 18/6 and not 18/3, similarly Ex.P18. Ex.P19 to P22 are the receipts for payment of land revenue by original plaintiff. However, these receipts do not indicate as to in respect of which property revenue has been paid. Therefore, they are of no assistance to the plaintiff. Exs. P23 to P27 are the photographs. However, the photographs per se would not establish that it relates to suit schedule property. Thus, the documentary evidence produced by the plaintiffs, as rightly opined by the trial Court, does not establish the title of the original plaintiff to the suit schedule property bearing Survey No. 18/3. On the other hand, the title deeds produced by the plaintiff relate to Survey No. 18/4. The documentary evidence produced by the original plaintiff also does not establish his possession of land bearing Survey No. 18/3. It is pertinent to note that though the original plaintiff has purchased the property bearing Survey No. 18/4 in the year 1959, about 45 years prior to the date of the suit, no documentary evidence is produced to show that prior to the year 1998-99, the name of the original plaintiff was found in any of the revenue records pertaining to Survey No. 18/3 showing the possession of the same by the plaintiff. It is the contention of the original plaintiff that the property purchased by him was Survey No. 18/3, however, there was a mistake in the sale deed executed in his favour wherein it was wrongly shown as 18/4. This contention has not been substantiated by any acceptable evidence. 17. As noticed supra, the vendor of the original plaintiff acquired title only to Survey No. 18/4 in the year1957 under the sale deed dated 05.07.1957. Therefore, vendor of the original plaintiff could not have conveyed any title in respect of Survey No. 18/3 when he had acquired title only to Survey No. 18/4. It is not the case of the original plaintiff that even in the sale deed under which his vendor purchased the property from Motamma, there was a mistake. Added to this, in the sale deed marked as Ex.P3, whereunder, the original plaintiff sold the property to Nanjappa, the property is described as Survey No. 18/4 and not 18/3. It is not the case of the original plaintiff that even in the sale deed under which his vendor purchased the property from Motamma, there was a mistake. Added to this, in the sale deed marked as Ex.P3, whereunder, the original plaintiff sold the property to Nanjappa, the property is described as Survey No. 18/4 and not 18/3. Strangely while repurchasing the property under Ex.P2, the description of the property is shown as Survey No. 18/2. In none of these documents there has been any reference to Survey No. 18/3. When the vendor of the original plaintiff had not acquired any title to land bearing Survey No. 18/3, it does not lie in the mouth of the plaintiff to contend that there has been a mistake in the sale deed executed in his favour in mentioning the survey number. Having regard to the fact that the vendor of the original plaintiff had acquired title only to Survey No. 18/4, rightly the said property is shown to have been sold to the plaintiff under Ex.P1. According to the contention of the plaintiff, though in the sale deed land sold in his favour is mentioned as 18/4, he was placed in possession of Survey No. 18/3 and upon survey he came to know that the land in his possession is Survey No. 18/3. There is no acceptable evidence in this regard. If according to the plaintiff what was sold to him was Survey No. 18/3 and not Survey No. 18/4, it was not that much difficult for him to have proved by producing the evidence to establish the boundaries of land bearing 18/3 and 18/4 and if such evidence had been placed, the Court would have been in a position to compare the boundaries of these lands vis-à-vis the boundaries mentioned in Exs.P1 to P3 and in such an event, the Court would have been in a position to appreciate the contention of the plaintiff in this regard. However, the plaintiff has not produced any such evidence. There is absolutely no evidence on record as to what is the boundary of the land bearing Survey No. 18/3 and whether the said boundary corresponds with the boundaries mentioned in Exs.P1 to P3. However, the plaintiff has not produced any such evidence. There is absolutely no evidence on record as to what is the boundary of the land bearing Survey No. 18/3 and whether the said boundary corresponds with the boundaries mentioned in Exs.P1 to P3. In the absence of any such evidence, in my opinion, the trial Court is justified in holding that the plaintiffs have utterly failed to establish that the original plaintiff was placed in possession of land bearing Survey No. 18/3 and that he continued in possession thereof. 18. On re-appreciation of the materials on record, I am of the considered opinion that the Court below is justified in dismissing the suit of the plaintiff. The additional documents sought to be produced before this Court, are copies of the documents and certain electricity bills as well as certain photographs. 19. Sub-Rule (1) of Rule 27 Order 41 of CPC bars the appellate Court from entertaining any additional evidence either oral or temporary. However, certain exceptions are carried out as stated in clauses under sub-rule (1) under which, the appellate Court may allow the additional evidence. The circumstances enumerated under sub-rule (1) are:- (a) the Court from whose decree the appeal is preferred has refused to admit evidence which ought to have been admitted, or (b) the party seeking to produce additional evidence, establishes that nor withstanding the exercise of due diligence, such evidence was not within his knowledge or could not, after the exercise of due diligence, be produced him at the time when the decree appealed against was passed, or (c) 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. 20. In order to permit production of additional evidence, the party so intending to produce the additional evidence will have to satisfy all or any one of the conditions enumerated therein. It is not the contention of the appellant that they sought to produce these documents before the trial Court and the trial Court refused to admit them, nor it is the contention of the appellants that the additional evidence sought to be produced were not within their knowledge nor it is their case that even after exercise of due diligence, they could not produce them before the trial Court. Therefore, clauses (a), (aa) to sub-rule (1) of Rule 27 are not attracted to the case on hand. What remains is only circumstance stated under clause (b) namely if the appellate Court requires such document to be produced to enable it to pronounce the judgment or for any other substantial cause. 21. Having perused the additional evidence sought to be produced, I am of the considered opinion that they are not relevant for the purpose of this Court pronouncing the judgment in the case nor there is any other substantial cause for permitting the appellants to produce the additional evidence. The Electricity Bills sought to be produced do not indicate that it relates to Survey No. 18/3. The copies of the lease agreements and rental agreements sought to be produced have all come into existence during the pendency of the suit. The photographs per-se do not establish that they relate to Survey No. 18/3. The documents relating to acquisition of 2 guntas of land in Survey No. 18/3 by BDA for formation of road and the payment of compensation to the plaintiff by themselves would not establish either the title or possession of the plaintiff in respect of Survey No. 18/3. Therefore, none of these documents now sought to be produced have any relevance to the subject matter of the suit. As already discussed, the evidence placed by the plaintiff before the trial Court does not in any way establish the title of the plaintiff to the land bearing Survey No. 18/3 and therefore, the trial Court is justified in holding that the plaintiff is not entitled for declaration sought. The trial Court having regard to the evidence available on record is further justified in holding that the plaintiff has utterly failed to prove his possession of the suit schedule property bearing Survey No. 18/3, as such, the plaintiff is not entitled for the relief of permanent injunction. 22. The findings recorded by the trial Court on the material issues are sound and reasonable regard being had to the evidence available on record and I do not see any perversity or illegality in the findings recorded by the trial Court so as to warrant interference by this Court. In this view of the matter, I find no merit in this appeal, therefore, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. In this view of the matter, I find no merit in this appeal, therefore, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the appeal as well as all the pending applications are dismissed. In the circumstances of the case, the parties are directed to bear their costs throughout.