JUDGMENT : K. SURESH REDDY, J. 1. Aggrieved by the decree and judgment dated 06-04-2011 in O.S. No. 1115 of 2007 on the file of the Court of learned V Additional Senior Civil Judge (Fast Track Court), Vijayawada (for short ‘the Court below’) the unsuccessful defendant preferred the present appeal. 2. The appellant was the defendant and the respondent was the plaintiff before the Court below and they will hereinafter be referred to as per their ranking before the Court below for convenience. 3. The case of the plaintiff in brief is as follows: The plaintiff is the absolute owner of the property bearing door No. 76-8-10, assessment No. 92652 in R.S. No. 75/1, Municipal Ward No. 31/2, Crombay Road, Bhavanipuram, Vijayawada. The plaintiff acquired the said property by way of registered sale deed dated 11-02-2005 and gift deed dated 02-03-2001. The defendant is wife of younger brother of the plaintiff. The plaintiff allowed the defendant to reside in the schedule property on free of rent by way of permissive possession in an extent of 150 square yards of house site and a house therein consisting of two rooms and a verandah. The defendant, with an evil intention to grab the property, gave a police complaint against her husband, the plaintiff and mother of the plaintiff for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC which was registered as a case in Crime No. 947 of 2002 of I Town Police Station, Vijayawada. At that time, when the police took the plaintiff, her brother and mother for investigation purpose, the defendant thrown out all their belongings. After release on bail, the plaintiff, her brother and mother took shelter in Sivalayam and residing there. After trial, the plaintiff, her brother and mother were found not guilty and accordingly they were acquitted. After acquittal, the plaintiff demanded the defendant to vacate and deliver vacant possession of the premises but the defendant is postponing the same. Hence, the plaintiff cancelled the permissive possession. Since the date of permissive possession, the defendant is residing and enjoying the schedule premises. The plaintiff, therefore, claims damages at the rate of Rs. 2,000/- per month for the illegal and unlawful possession of the defendant. Hence, the suit. 4. Hence, the plaintiff cancelled the permissive possession. Since the date of permissive possession, the defendant is residing and enjoying the schedule premises. The plaintiff, therefore, claims damages at the rate of Rs. 2,000/- per month for the illegal and unlawful possession of the defendant. Hence, the suit. 4. The defendant filed written statement denying all the material allegations made in the plaint inter-alia contending that the suit is not maintainable; that she was forced to give complaint when she was unable to withstand the dowry harassment which she was subjected by her husband, mother-in-law and the plaintiff; that the plaintiff has no right, title or possession over the schedule property; that her husband is the man behind the litigation and he made the plaintiff to file this frivolous suit with a mala-fide intention to avoid his matrimonial obligation of providing maintenance to the defendant and her sons; that the house owned by the plaintiff is in an extent of 186 square yards only and not 187.6 square yards as mentioned in the schedule; that the property in which the defendant is living is her own property; that the defendant is living in it continuously ever since the date of her marriage i.e. more than 14 years; that at the time of marriage, her mother-in-law namely Rukminamma declared in the presence of one Gamini Venkataramaiah, Pendyala Ramu and other relatives that the said property was given to her and her husband Trivikrama Rao; that she spent an amount of Rs. 60,000/- derived from selling of her gold ornaments and her Stridhana amount of Rs. 20,000/- and constructed one living room abutting to the old room on its northern side and two shops on its western side; that the plaintiff, knowing all these facts, made a claim over the same by issuing registered notice only as a counterblast to the matrimonial disputes between her and her husband i.e. younger brother of the plaintiff; that the two shops were given for lease; one is to Yagna Enterprises for Rs. 1,500/- and another is to Sai Mahita Chappals for Rs. 1,300/- that as her husband became puppet in the hands of the plaintiff, the latter herself is collecting and appropriate the rents and that the plaintiff is not entitled to file the suit basing on invalid documents. The defendant, therefore, prayed to dismiss the suit. 5. 1,500/- and another is to Sai Mahita Chappals for Rs. 1,300/- that as her husband became puppet in the hands of the plaintiff, the latter herself is collecting and appropriate the rents and that the plaintiff is not entitled to file the suit basing on invalid documents. The defendant, therefore, prayed to dismiss the suit. 5. Basing on the above pleadings, the Court below framed the following issues: “1. Whether the defendant to vacate and deliver the vacant possession of the plaint schedule property? 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the pliant schedule property? 3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for damages? 4. To what relief?” 6. During the course of trial, on behalf of the plaintiff, PWs. 1 and 2 were examined and got marked Exs.A1 to A20. On behalf of the defendant, DWs. 1 to 5 were examined but no documents were marked. 7. Upon hearing arguments of both learned counsel and basing on the material available on record, the Court below decreed the suit as prayed for in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant. 8. Aggrieved by the impugned decree and judgment of the Court below, the present appeal is preferred on the grounds that the Court below failed to observe that the husband of the defendant in collusion with his mother got transferred the property by way of sale deed in favour of the plaintiff, after institution of criminal proceedings against them, only to deprive the rights of the defendant and her children; that the Court below failed to see that the plaintiff is an unmarried lady and she has no capacity to purchase the schedule premises without any source of income; that the Court below failed to appreciate the oral promise of Smt. Rukminamma, mother of the plaintiff, at the time of marriage of the defendant and that the Court below failed to appreciate that the defendant constructed the rooms by spending money with her Stridhana and the amount derived from selling her gold ornaments. Hence, the defendant prays for dismissal of the suit by allowing this appeal. 9. Heard Sri. K. Ramakoteswara Rao, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-defendant, and Sri. Y.V. Ravi Prasad, learned senior counsel, representing Sri. Y.V. Anil Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-plaintiff. Hence, the defendant prays for dismissal of the suit by allowing this appeal. 9. Heard Sri. K. Ramakoteswara Rao, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-defendant, and Sri. Y.V. Ravi Prasad, learned senior counsel, representing Sri. Y.V. Anil Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-plaintiff. During course of hearing, learned counsel for the defendant reiterated the contentions raised in the grounds of appeal while learned senior counsel argued totally in support of the findings recorded by the Court below and finally prayed for dismissal of the appeal by confirming the impugned decree and judgment of the Court below. 10. During the pendency of the appeal before this Court, the defendant filed I.A. No. 1 of 2021 under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short C.P.C.) seeking permission to bring on record additional documentary evidence. As held by the Apex Court in State of Rajasthan vs. T.N. Sahani, (2001) 10 SCC 619 and Mandala Madhava Rao vs. Mandala Yadagiri, 2001 (3) ALD 577 the application filed by either parties to the appeal under Order XLI Rule 27 of C.P.C. has to be considered along with the appeal. If such application falls within the parameters of relevant rule and those documents are necessary to pronounce judgment, the Court can permit and mark additional evidence. Learned counsel for the plaintiff does not seriously oppose the application. This Court is, therefore, inclined to allow the application. The documents filed along with the application are marked as exhibits. 11. Considering the rival contentions of both learned counsel, the point that arises for consideration is as follows: “Whether the defendant is in permissive possession of the schedule property, if so, whether she is liable to vacate the same and pay damages at the rate claimed by the plaintiff?” 12. POINT: Originally, Smt. Annapurnamma, grandmother of the plaintiff, was the absolute owner of the property in an extent of 373.6 square yards. The said Annapurnamma died intestate leaving behind the mother of the plaintiff by name Smt. Rukminamma as her sole legal representative. Therefore, the mother of the plaintiff became the absolute owner of the property in an extent of 373.6 square yards. The specific case of the plaintiff is that an extent of 186 square yards out of total extent of 373.6 square yards was settled in her favour by her mother Smt. Rukminamma under Ex.A1 Gift Deed dated 02-03-2001. Therefore, the mother of the plaintiff became the absolute owner of the property in an extent of 373.6 square yards. The specific case of the plaintiff is that an extent of 186 square yards out of total extent of 373.6 square yards was settled in her favour by her mother Smt. Rukminamma under Ex.A1 Gift Deed dated 02-03-2001. The only dispute is with regard to the remaining extent of 187.6 square yards situated on the southern side to the property gifted to the plaintiff under Ex.A1. The plaintiff is claiming the remaining extent of 187.6 square yards, which is the schedule property, under Ex.A2 Registered Sale Deed dated 11-02-2005 said to have been executed in her favour by her mother Smt. Rukminamma. After marriage, the plaintiff allowed her younger brother i.e. husband of the defendant and the defendant to reside in the schedule premises on free of rent by permissive possession. Thereafter, disputes arose between the defendant and her husband and the defendant gave a police report against her husband, mother-in-law and the plaintiff. After conducting investigation, charge sheet was filed and the same was numbered as C.C. No. 994 of 2003. After fullfledged trial, the said case ended in acquittal. Thereafter, the plaintiff got issued registered notice dated 07-04-2007 calling upon the defendant to vacate the schedule premises and deliver vacant possession of the same on or before 30-04-2007. The defendant is also not disputing the right and title of her mother-in-law Smt. Rukminamma so also execution of Ex.A1 Gift Deed in favour of the plaintiff for an extent of 186 square yards situated on the northern side of the schedule premises. 13. The contentions of leaned counsel for the defendant are that at the time of marriage, mother-in-law of the defendant declared in the presence of friends and relatives that the schedule premises was given to her and her husband; that since then, the defendant is living in the schedule premises without any objection from anybody whatsoever and that the defendant spent an amount of Rs. 60,000/- derived from selling her gold ornaments and Stridhana of Rs. 20,000/- and constructed one living room abutting to the old room on its northern side and two shops on its western side and that the two shops were given for lease. When the defendant pleaded oral gift, it is for her to prove the same. 60,000/- derived from selling her gold ornaments and Stridhana of Rs. 20,000/- and constructed one living room abutting to the old room on its northern side and two shops on its western side and that the two shops were given for lease. When the defendant pleaded oral gift, it is for her to prove the same. To prove the oral gift, the defendant herself was examined as DW-1 besides examining DWs. 2 to 5 who are her close relatives. Except the ipse dixit of DWs. 1 to 5, no independent witness is examined on her behalf to prove the oral gift pleaded by the defendant. Moreover, none of the witnesses stated that the defendant spent her Stridhana and the amounts derived from selling her gold ornaments for construction of living room and two shops. The defendant did not choose to examine her mother-in-law to prove the alleged oral gift and either of the lessees to prove that the two shops were given for lease for the reasons best known to her. 14. As has been already adverted to in this judgment, there is no serious objection for marking the documents filed as additional evidence. I.A. No. 1 of 2021 is accordingly ordered and the documents filed along with it are marked as indicated in the body of the judgment. The documents filed by the defendant are electricity bills and payment receipts but they cannot confer any right or title to the defendant over the schedule premises. At best, the documents are helpful to show that the defendant is in possession and enjoyment of the schedule premises which the plaintiff is also not disputing. No doubt, there is no document of title in favour of the defendant vesting a perfect title in the defendant over the suit schedule property. However, the aforesaid documents referred to and relied upon by the defendant would show that it was Smt. Annapurnamma, grandmother of the plaintiff, in whose name they were issued. It has also not been established that the defendant spent her Stridhana and the amount derived by selling her gold ornaments for construction of the living room and two shops in the schedule premises. Moreover, it is evident that the defendant and her husband came into possession of the schedule premises through the plaintiff. 15. It has also not been established that the defendant spent her Stridhana and the amount derived by selling her gold ornaments for construction of the living room and two shops in the schedule premises. Moreover, it is evident that the defendant and her husband came into possession of the schedule premises through the plaintiff. 15. If Ex.A5 office copy of the registered notice is taken into consideration, the ground of eviction and threat of filing suit are appearing on the face of it. The defendant was also asked to vacate the schedule premises and the defendant was given time to vacate the schedule premises. Having received the said notice, the defendant got issued reply on 02-05-2007. With regard to damages, in my considered opinion, damages awarded at the rate of Rs. 2,000/- per month appears to be reasonable and justified. 16. For all the aforesaid reasons, I am of the view that the defendant is in permissive possession of the schedule premises and therefore she is liable to vacate the same and also liable to pay the damages as claimed by the plaintiff. The Court below, on proper appreciation of facts and evidence available on record, rightly decreed the suit of the plaintiff. This Court, being the Court of first appellate, on reappraising the entire evidence on record both oral and documentary, is of the considered view that the Court below did commit no error in decreeing the suit. The point is accordingly answered in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant. 17. In view of my foregoing discussion, the appeal is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed. 18. The appeal is accordingly dismissed confirming the decree and judgment dated 06-04-2011 in O.S. No. 1115 of 2007 on the file of the Court of learned V Additional Senior Civil Judge (Fast Track), Vijayawada. The defendant is directed to vacate the schedule premises and deliver vacant possession of the same to the plaintiff within a period three months from today and also directed to pay damages at the rate of Rs. 2,000/- per month for her unauthorized occupation of the schedule premises from 01-05-2007 till the date of delivery of vacant possession of the schedule premises. 19. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand dismissed in consequence. No costs.