JUDGMENT AND ORDER : 1. This second appeal, under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 has been admitted for hearing on the following substantial question of law: “Whether the judgment of the first appellate court is perverse when the records of right have been reufsed to accept by the trial Court.” 2. Heard learned counsel, Mr. Niharendu Majumder for the appellant and learned Sr. counsel, Mr. S. Deb assisted by learned counsel, Mr. S.C. Das for the respondents. 3. The appellant, as plaintiff instituted Title Suit No. 7 of 2003 in the Court of Civil Judge, Jr. Division, Sonamura, West Tripura seeking declaration of title, confirmation of possession and perpetual injunction of the suit land described in the schedule of the plaint. 4. In a very short compass, the case of the plaintiff is that his father got the allotment of the suit land in the year 1964 and thereafter Khatian No. 923 was prepared in the name of his father and after the death of his father he stepped to the shoes of his father and was possessing the suit land. His sisters relinquished their right in his favour and at the time of revisional survey settlement the suit land was recorded in Khatian No. 612, Plot No. 576 measuring 2(two) shatak. The defendants made attempt to dispossess him from the suit land on 16.11.2002 and a proceeding under Section 145 of Cr.P.C. was initiated since he approached the police and thereafter again the defendants made attempt to dispossess him from the suit land on 16.10.2003 and again on 26.10.2003 and therefore the plaintiff instituted the suit seeking declaration of right, title, interest and confirmation of possession and permanent injunction against the defendants. 5. Defendants contested the suit by filing written statement, inter-alia, contending that the suit land was allotted in the name of Dasarath Das, the maternal grandfather of defendant No. 2 and that Dasarath Das died leaving behind three daughters and that defendant No. 2 is the son of one of the daughters namely Pramilabala Das. Defendant No. 1 Durjadhan Das is the near relative of Pramilabala Das and that they are possessing the suit land. Defendant No. 1 Durjadhan Das is the near relative of Pramilabala Das and that they are possessing the suit land. The defendants while found that the suit land was wrongly recorded in the name of the plaintiff at the time of revisional survey of 1995, they filed objection before the D.M. & Collector on 29.11.2001 under Section 95 of TLR and LR Act and that was registered as a Revenue Case No. 143/2002. The case was pending waiting final disposal before the D.M. & Collector. The plaintiff and his father were never in possession of the suit land and so the defendants prayed for dismissal of the suit. 6. The trial Court taking into consideration the pleadings of the parties framed 5(five) issues namely: (i) Whether the suit is maintainable in its present form and nature; (ii) Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary party; (iii) Whether the plaintiff has right, title, interest and possession over the suit land; (iv) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief or reliefs as prayed for; (v) To what other relief/reliefs the parties are entitled. 7. In course of trial, the plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1 and also examined two more witnesses and proved Khatian No. 923 which was marked as Exbt.1. 8. Defendant No. 2 examined himself as D.W.1 and defendant No. 1 examined himself as D.W.2 and they also examined another witness namely D.W.3 but did not adduce any documentary evidence. 9. While deciding the main issue i.e. the issue no. (iii) the trial Court held that the plaintiff had no title over the suit land but has better right, superior interest and physical possession over the suit land vis-a-vis the defendants. 10. The defendants challenged the judgment and decree by filing Title Appeal No. 03/2007 and the Title Appeal was allowed and thereby the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court was set aside. 11. Aggrieved, the plaintiff preferred the present second appeal. 12. Learned counsel, Mr. Majumder candidly argued that the father of the plaintiff was allotted the suit land in the year 1964 and Khatian No. 923 was prepared in the name of father of the plaintiff on the basis of allotment. He has submitted that the allotment order could not be produced by the plaintiff but the Khatian and rent receipt were produced by the plaintiff. He has submitted that the allotment order could not be produced by the plaintiff but the Khatian and rent receipt were produced by the plaintiff. The plaintiff also adduced oral evidence which proved the plaintiff’s possession and the possession of his father from 1964. The trial court though held that the plaintiff could not prove his title but has held that that the plaintiff is in possession of the suit land continuously and Khatian was prepared in the name of the plaintiff. Mr. Majumder submitted that the trial Court refused to declare the title only on the ground that an allotted land cannot be transferred. He has also submitted that the defendants after the argument was concluded before the trial Court filed a copy of the order passed by the Revenue Commissioner along with a Khatian prepared in the name of the daughters of Dasarath Das which was not accepted by the trial Court as evidence but the appellate Court wrongly accepted that document and decided the suit against the plaintiff. That is the crux of the point which is raised by learned counsel, Mr. Majumder in this second appeal. 13. On the other hand, Mr. Deb learned Sr. counsel has argued that the very status of the claim of the plaintiff is the Khatian which has already been changed by the Revenue Authority. The Defendants claimed that it was allotted in the name of Dasarath Das and that mother of defendant No. 2 inherited the property. They prayed for correction of the Khatian and that has been allowed by the superior Revenue Authority. That document was placed before the trial Court for consideration under Order 8, Rule 1A(3) of CPC but the trial Court did not consider that document whereas in the appeal the defendants took a plea for consideration of that document and the appellate Court under Order 41, Rule 27 considered the prayer of the defendants since those were public document and accordingly passed the judgment. There is no infirmity in the judgment and hence, Mr. Deb, learned Sr. counsel prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 14. Order VIII, Rule 1A(3) of CPC prescribes that a document which ought to be produced in Court by the defendant but was not so produced shall not, without the leave of the Court, be received in evidence on his behalf at the hearing of the suit. Deb, learned Sr. counsel prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 14. Order VIII, Rule 1A(3) of CPC prescribes that a document which ought to be produced in Court by the defendant but was not so produced shall not, without the leave of the Court, be received in evidence on his behalf at the hearing of the suit. It is an admitted position that the defendants filed the petition under Order VIII, Rule 1A(3) of CPC on 25.09.2006 after the hearing of the suit was over, but it is an admitted position that judgment was not passed. Anyway, the trial Court by order dated 28.11.2006 rejected the prayer of the defendants made under Order VIII, Rule 1A(3) of CPC and the defendants did not challenge that order before the superior forum. The defendants, however, challenged that decision of the trial Court in the appeal filed before the appellate Court. The appellate Court arrived at a reasoned finding that while the document was filed before the trial Court assigning reason that it could not be filed at the time when written statement was filed since it was not available at that time, the appellate court in exercise of power under Order XLI, Rule 27 of CPC admitted that document in evidence. Order XLI, Rule 27 prescribes production of additional evidence at appellate Court. It reads as follows: “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. (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. (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.” 15. (2) Wherever additional evidence is allowed to be produced by an Appellate Court, the Court shall record the reason for its admission.” 15. It is an admitted position that the document was filed before the trial Court assigning reason and the defendants prayed for admitting the document but that was refused by the trial Court. The appellate Court in exercise of the power as prescribed in Order XLI, Rule 27 has admitted it which is within the limits of the power prescribed under the provision and so, I find no infirmity in the finding of the appellate Court in respect of acceptance of the document in evidence for consideration. 16. While the order of the Revenue Commissioner and the changed Khatian in the name of mother of the defendant No. 2 and others has been proved and it shows that the Khatian prepared in the name of father of the plaintiff has been changed, the plaintiff cannot have any case to show that he has right, title and interest over the suit land. He is in possession of the suit land as held by the trial Court. That judgment and decree has been set aside by the appellate Court considering the Khatian prepared and the observation about the possession of the suit land. Since I find no infirmity in the judgment passed by the appellate Court, the second appeal stands dismissed. 17. Parties to bear their own costs. 18. Send back the L.C. records along with a copy of this judgment.