JUDGMENT AND ORDER : 1. Heard Mr. D.R. Choudhury, learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as Mr. D. Chakraborty, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. H. Laskar, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. This is an appeal under Section 100 of the CPC from the judgment and order dated 30.08.2016, delivered in Title Appeal No. 15 of 2012 passed by the Addl. District Judge, Court No. 5, West Tripura, Agartala, dismissing the appeal preferred against the judgment and order dated 04.02.2012 passed by the Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Court No. 1, Agartala, West Tripura, in Title Suit No. 112 of 2005. 3. By the said judgment and order dated 04.02.2012, the Civil Judge, Jr. Division, dismissed the suit of the plaintiff being T.S. No. 112 of 2005 holding inter-alia that the plaintiff has absolutely failed to prove his title over the suit land inasmuch as, the predecessor of the plaintiff namely Dhirendra Chandra Banik purchased the land, measuring 0.59 acres spread in several plots, by the registered sale deed No. 17545 dated 19.07.1962. But when said Dhirendra Chandra Banik sold the land to the plaintiff, it has been recorded in the sale deed that the area of land was 0.65 acres, meaning more than 0.06 acre from the purchased land. 4. The trial Judge has clearly observed that no evidence has also been adduced to substantiate the fact that the plaintiff purchased total 0.65 acres of land, out of which as stated, the predecessor-vendor of the plaintiff was the undisputed owner of the land measuring 0.59 acre by purchase. In addition, the plaintiff claimed right over the suit land measuring 0.06 acre by possession. This is so observed for purpose of perpetual injunction, as sought on the basis of the title and possession. 5. The trial Judge has further observed that even the possession for purpose of emergence of the right could not be proved. Be that as it may, in the plaint it was not pleaded that any right was created in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the suit land as described in the plaint measuring .06 acre by way of possession or how and what manner he has been possessing the said land. 6. Be that as it may, in the plaint it was not pleaded that any right was created in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the suit land as described in the plaint measuring .06 acre by way of possession or how and what manner he has been possessing the said land. 6. The trial Judge has correctly observed on the basis of a decision of the Gauhati High Court in Parimal Debnath and Others vs. Amod Bashi Debnath, (2008) 3 GLR 290, where it was held that “only the finally published khatians give rise to the presumption of correctness under Section 43 of the TLR & LR Act and that whatever may be in the draft khatian carries on presumptive value.” 7. It is admitted position as stated by Mr. D.R. Choudhury, learned counsel appearing for the appellant that no khatian beyond the khatian in the draft stage was introduced in the evidence. Hence, there was no question of presumption of possession in favour of the plaintiff. 8. However, Mr. Choudhury, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has further submitted that the plaintiff has collected a finally published khatian in respect of the suit land and intended to introduce the same in the record of evidence by filing an application under Order XLI Rule 27 of the CPC, but the Appellate Court did not allow that on the face of the stiff resistance provided by the respondents herein. The first appellate court has affirmed the finding of the trial court, why the first appellate court has not accepted the additional evidence in the judgment it has been provided as under: “16. Mr. Choudhury, learned counsel for the plaintiff further contended that the suit land has been recorded in the name of plaintiff in the finally published khatian bearing No. 2067 of Ramnagar Mauja under Barjala Tahashil published on 21.02.2014. The order dated 12.04.2016 shows that the plaintiff sought for adducing additional evidence by exhibiting the Khatian No. 2098 in the name of the vendor of the plaintiff-appellant and the Khatian No. 2067 is in the name of the plaintiff. The defendants filed objection on the ground that there is no reference in the pleading in the plaint of the plaintiff and if the additional evidence as sought for is allowed it would be without pleading and beyond the scope under Order XLI Rule 27 of the CPC. The defendants filed objection on the ground that there is no reference in the pleading in the plaint of the plaintiff and if the additional evidence as sought for is allowed it would be without pleading and beyond the scope under Order XLI Rule 27 of the CPC. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. Ibrahim Uddin and Another, 2012 STPL (LE) 46619 SC has observed: “The admissibility of additional evidence does not depend upon the relevancy to the issue on hand, or on the fact, whether the applicant had an opportunity for adducing such evidence at an earlier stage or not, but it depends upon whether or not the Appellate Court requires the evidence sought to be adduced to enable it to pronounce judgment or for any other substantial cause. The true test, therefore is, whether the Appellate Court is liable to pronounce judgment on the materials before it without taking into consideration the additional evidence sought to be adduced. Such occasion would arise only if on examining the evidence as it stands the court comes to the conclusion that some inherent lacuna or defect becomes apparent to the Court. (Vide: Arjan Singh vs. Kartar Singh and Others, AIR 1951 SC 193 and Natha Singh and Others vs. The Financial Commissioner, Taxation, Punjab and Others, AIR 1976 SC 1053 .” 17. From the above as ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court it is ample clear that the admissibility of additional evidence depends upon whether the Appellate Court requires the evidence sought to be adduced to enable it to pronounce judgment or for any other substantial cause and such occasion would arise only if on examining the evidence as it stands the court comes to the conclusion that some inherent lacuna or defect becomes apparent to the Court. In the instant case the plaintiff sought for declaration of title and confirmation of possession based on the title deed by virtue of his purchase deed Exhibit1. The plaintiff sought for consideration the Khatian obtained after the judgment passed by the learned trial court. Khatian is a revenue record. It is settled law that revenue record is not a document of title. It merely raises a presumption in regard to possession. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. Vasavi Co-Op. The plaintiff sought for consideration the Khatian obtained after the judgment passed by the learned trial court. Khatian is a revenue record. It is settled law that revenue record is not a document of title. It merely raises a presumption in regard to possession. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. Vasavi Co-Op. Housing Society Ltd. 2014 STPL (LE) 48505 SC thus held: “24. We are of the view that even if the entries in the Record of Right carry evidentiary value, that itself would not confer any title on the Classer Register of 1347 which according to the trial court, speaks of the ownership of the plaintiff’s vendor’s property. We are of the view that these entries, as such, would not confer any title. Plaintiffs have to show, independent of those entries, that the plaintiff’s predecessors had title over the property in question and it is that property which they have purchased. The only document that has been produced before the court was the registered family settlement and partition deed dated 11.12.1939 of their predecessor in interest, wherein, admittedly, the suit land in question has not been mentioned.” 9. Sections 37 and 38 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 if read together, would provide the conditions, on observance of which the perpetual injunction can be granted by a Civil Court. It has been specifically provided under Section38 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 that it is will be the fundamental onus of the plaintiff to show that he has any existing right. ‘Right’ means under what authority he was claiming the relief before the Civil Court. 10. From a reading of the entire plaint, this Court does not find that there is any assertion by way of pleading that the plaintiff was claiming his right on the basis of possession. All through the plaintiff has advanced a case for the perpetual injunction based on the title. There cannot be any difference of opinion with the concurrent findings as returned by the courts below that the plaintiff has utterly failed to prove his title over the suit land. 11. In view of this, this appeal does not have any merit and accordingly it is dismissed at this stage. A copy of this order be sent to the trial court for record, after drawing the decree in terms of the above.