JUDGMENT : Sanjay Karol, J. Defendant-appellant Nagin Singh, hereinafter referred to as the defendant, has filed the present appeal under the provisions of Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, assailing the judgment and decree dated 2.1.2006, passed by the District Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala, in Civil Appeal No. 90-N/XIII-2004, titled as Nagin Singh v. Swarni Devi and others, whereby judgment dated 24.8.2004, passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division)-I, Nurpur, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh, in Civil Suit No. 51/98, titled as Swarni Devi and others v. Nagin Singh, stands affirmed. 2. Claiming themselves to be successors-in interest of Basantu and Santi, children of Bhangi, plaintiffs respondents Swarni Devi, Joga Singh and Datto Devi, hereinafter referred to as the plaintiffs, have set up their title with respect to the suit property. Challenge is also laid to the entries, recorded in the name of defendant. 3. Based on the pleadings of the parties, trial Court framed the following issues: 1. Whether the plaintiffs are the owners in possession of the suit land, as alleged? OPP 2. Whether the revenue entries, contrary to this, are wrong and illegal? OPP 3. Whether the suit is not maintainable? OPD 4. Whether the suit is barred by limitation? OPD 5. Relief. 4. On the evidence so led, trial Court answered the issues in favour of the plaintiffs and decreed the suit in the following terms: "In view of the aforesaid discussion and findings, the suit succeeds and decreed with costs. A decree of declaration is passed that the plaintiffs are co-owners in joint possession of the land comprising in Khata No. 46, Khatauni No. 50, Khasra Nos. 16, 22, 101, 358, 359, 360, 361, plots 7 measuring 1-34-06 HM and Khata No. 47, Khatauni No. 51, Khasra No. 17, 49, plots 2 measuring 1-10-05 HM, situated in Mohal Manwal Jattan, Mouza Madholi, Tehsil Nurpur, District Kangra and plaintiff number 1 has succeeded to the estate of Basantu to the extent of half share and plaintiffs No. 2 & 3 have succeeded to the remaining half share of the estate of Basantu and defendant is wrongly shown co-share of 165/288 and 60/144 shares in the suit land and the entries in the land revenue record qua share of Basantu are wrong, illegal, null and void and not binding on the rights, title and interest of the plaintiffs. A further decree of injunction is passed in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendant restraining the defendant from interfering in the ownership of the plaintiffs or alienating the suit land in excess of his share and more particularly the aforesaid estate of Basantu which was wrongly inherited by him. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly." 5. Findings of fact, judgment and decree, so passed by the trial Court, stand affirmed by the lower appellate Court. 6. Hence, the present appeal by the defendant, which was admitted on the following substantial question of law: Whether the findings of the two courts below that Santi was a sister of Basantu and that on the death of Basantu, she being alive had the right to inherit Basantu's estate, are contrary to the evidence on record and the law prevailing at the time of death of Basantu? 7. An application under Order 41, Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure (being CMP No. 15558/2013) stands filed by the defendant, for leading additional evidence. I am afraid, this application cannot be allowed. The documents now sought to be placed on record were well within the knowledge of the parties. Parties chose not to prove the same in accordance with law. It cannot be said that despite exercise of due diligence by the defendant such evidence could not be led. Negligence is writ large. As such, application only merits rejection. Ordered accordingly. 8. The only issue, which arises for consideration, in the instant appeal, is as to whether the Courts below, being the final fact finding authority, erred in holding plaintiff Santi Devi to be sister of Basantu and her daughter Swarni Devi and grandchildren Joga Singh (plaintiff No. 2) and Dattu Devi (plaintiff No. 3), both sons of Baba son of Santi Devi, to be owners in possession of the suit land or not. 9. Having heard learned counsel for the parties as also perused the record, it cannot be said that the findings returned by the Courts below are contrary to record or the law prevalent at the time of death of Basantu. 10. That Basantu son of Bhangi was not married is not in dispute. That suit land was owned by Bhangi is evidently clear from the revenue record. How and in what capacity, name of contesting defendant stood reflected in the revenue record stands unestablished and unproven on record. 10. That Basantu son of Bhangi was not married is not in dispute. That suit land was owned by Bhangi is evidently clear from the revenue record. How and in what capacity, name of contesting defendant stood reflected in the revenue record stands unestablished and unproven on record. He is not a direct descendent of either Bhangi or Basantu. 11. To establish that Santi, predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs and sister of Basantu was born through Bhangi, plaintiffs have led both oral and documentary evidence. 12. Pedegree Table (Ex. P-13) does reflect that Bhangi had a daughter by the name of Santi. However, Birth Certificate (Ex.P-12) records Santi to be daughter of Bhangi. Lower Appellate Court has not based its findings on this certificate. 13. All the plaintiff's witnesses, namely Smt. Swarni Devi (PW-1), Shri Hazara Singh (PW-2), Shri Khushi Ram (PW-3), Shri Dhian Singh (PW-4) and Shri Partap Singh (PW-5), unequivocally have deposed that Bhangi had another child by the name of Santi, who was married in the State of Punjab. Significantly, this version stands corroborated through the testimony of defendant's witness Shri Chain Singh (DW-2), who unequivocally admits that Basantu used to visit Santi, who was married to one Chanda Singh, resident of State of Punjab. Death Certificate (Ex.P-10) clearly evidences such fact. 14. Shri Dhian Singh (PW-4), in his uncontroverted testimony, has also deposed that Bhangi had two children, namely Basantu and Santi. After the death of Basantu, Santi acquired the proprietory rights. 15. Noticeably, after the death of Bhangi, Basanu and Santi continued to remain in possession over the suit land. No efforts were made by the defendant to recover the same. 16. As such, it cannot be held that findings returned by the Courts below are illegal, perverse and erroneous, warranting interference by this Court. Substantial question of law is answered accordingly. For all the aforesaid reasons, the appeal is dismissed. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. Appeal Dismissed.