JUDGMENT : A.K. Rath, J. Defendant is the appellant against a confirming judgment. 2. Plaintiff-respondent instituted the suit for declaration of title over the suit land, recovery of possession and for permanent injunction. The case of the plaintiff is that the plaintiff and the defendant are brothers. While serving as a ‘Subedar’ in Orissa Military Police, he applied for lease of the suit plot in the year 1961-1962. In lease case no.640 of 1961-62, the suit land was leased out in his favour and delivery of possession was made. He was in possession of the same. He retired from services in the year 1971 and resided in his village Baluakata. His brother, the defendant, was serving as a Clerk in the office of the S.D.O., Angul and staying there. The suit land is situated within the area of Angul town. Taking advantage of his absence, the defendant forcibly occupied the eastern portion of the suit plot and started construction of a house. He protested, but in vain. With this factual scenario, he instituted the suit seeking the reliefs mentioned supra. 3. The defendant filed a written statement. According to him, the suit land is a portion of their joint family property. The same was acquired with the funds of the joint family in lease case nos.129 and 639 of 1961-62. The joint family was separated in the year 1978 after the death of the father. In a family partition, the eastern half of the suit plot fell to his share. He constructed a house over the same. The plaintiff has no right, title and interest over the suit land. 4. Stemming on the pleadings of the parties, learned trial court struck six issues. Parties led evidence. Learned trial court decreed the suit holding, inter alia, that the suit land was the self-acquired property of the plaintiff. The defendant had no title over the same. The unsuccessful defendant challenged the judgment and decree of the learned trial court in T.A. No.1 of 1989 before the learned District Judge, Dhenkanal-Angul, Dhenkanal, which was eventually dismissed. It is apt to mention here that during pendency of the second appeal, the defendant-appellant and plaintiff-respondent died. The legal heirs have been substituted. 5. Heard Mr. Gautam Mukherji, learned counsel along with Ms. Sagarika Sahoo, learned counsel for the appellants and Ms. Soumya Mishra, learned counsel on behalf of Mr. It is apt to mention here that during pendency of the second appeal, the defendant-appellant and plaintiff-respondent died. The legal heirs have been substituted. 5. Heard Mr. Gautam Mukherji, learned counsel along with Ms. Sagarika Sahoo, learned counsel for the appellants and Ms. Soumya Mishra, learned counsel on behalf of Mr. S.N. Mishra, learned counsel for the respondents. 6. Mr. Mukherji, learned counsel for the appellants, submitted that Laxman Singh, father of the plaintiff and defendant, was the karta of the family. Plaintiff, defendant and their father filed three applications for lease of the land. All the applications were tagged together. After causing necessary enquiry, lease was granted in the name of the plaintiff in Lease Case No.129/639 of 1961-62. Salami of Rs.600/-was paid by the defendant. The joint family had 20 to 22 acres of agricultural land. After death of the father, there was a partition in the family. The eastern half of the suit land fell to the share of the defendant. Thereafter, the defendant constructed a house. The same was acquired with the fund of joint family. The suit land is a part of their joint family property. He further submitted that during pendency of the appeal, Jayant Kumar Singh, son of Sanatan Singh, plaintiff, instituted C.S. No.387 of 2016 in the court of the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Angul for partition of the joint family property. The suit schedule property has been shown in schedule ‘A’ of the plaint. Elaborating the submission, he submitted that in paragraphs 4, 5, 12 and 16 of the plaint in C.S. No.387 of 2016 it is stated that the suit property is the ancestral property of the parties and the same has not been partitioned by metes and bounds. In view of the same, it is no more open for the plaintiff to contend that the suit schedule property is his self-acquired property. He submitted that the plaint in C.S. No.387 of 2016 filed in Misc. Case No.12 of 2018 be taken as additional evidence. 7. Countering the submission of Mr. Mukherji, learned counsel for the appellants, Ms. Mishra, learned counsel for the respondents, submitted that both the courts concurrently held that the suit schedule property is the self-acquired property of the plaintiff. The documents sought to be taken as additional evidence is not a public document. 7. Countering the submission of Mr. Mukherji, learned counsel for the appellants, Ms. Mishra, learned counsel for the respondents, submitted that both the courts concurrently held that the suit schedule property is the self-acquired property of the plaintiff. The documents sought to be taken as additional evidence is not a public document. Further, no where in the plaint, it is stated that the suit schedule property is the joint family property of the parties. 8. Order 41 Rule 27 (b) C.P.C provides that if 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, it may allow such evidence or document to be produced, or witness to be examined. Since C.S. No.387 of 2016 has been instituted during pendency of the appeal, where ‘A’ schedule property has been mentioned in the schedule of the plaint, misc. case no.12 of 2018 for additional evidence is allowed. 9. In C.S. No.387 of 2016, the plaintiff asserts that the suit schedule property is the ancestral property of the parties, which has not been partitioned by metes and bounds. Area Ac.0.12 dec. of land was leased out by the Govt. to his father in lease case no.640/1961-62. After death of his father, the same is under joint possession of the plaintiff and defendant no.1. The detail has been indicated in schedule-‘A’. The plaintiff has half share in it. The properties shown in schedule-B and C of the plaint are joint family properties, which were jointly recorded in the name of the common ancestors of the plaintiff and defendant nos.1 to 5, namely, late Laxman Singh, Hari Singh along with late Shyamsunder Singh. 10. The suit schedule property is a part of schedule ‘A’ property in a suit for partition. Plaintiff asserts that after death of his father, the same was under the joint possession of the plaintiff and defendant no.1, his brother. He has half share over it. Thus reliance placed on the plaint is totally misplaced. Both the courts concurrently held that the suit land is the self-acquired property of the plaintiff and the defendant has no share over the same. There is no perversity in the finding of the courts below. 11. Resultantly, the appeal is dismissed, since the same does not involve any substantial question of law.