JUDGMENT : M.G.S. KAMAL, J. 1. This regular second appeal is by the defendants in O.S. No.203/2011, being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 18.02.2020 passed in R.A. No.85/2019 on the file of the First Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Ballari (for short “the First Appellate Court”), by which the First Appellate Court, while allowing the appeal filed by the plaintiffs- respondents herein had set aside the judgement and decree dated 29.07.2015 passed in O.S. No.203/2011 on the file o the II-Addl. Civil Judge & JMFC, Ballari, (for short “the trial Court”) and decreed the suit, as prayed for. 2. The above suit in O.S. No.203/2011 is filed by the plaintiffs-respondents herein for the relief of declaration and possession in respect of the land bearing Sy.No.8/1 measuring 5 acres situated in Somalapura Village in Ballari Taluka (for short “the suit property”). It is the case of the plaintiffs that one Smt. Siddamma wife of Shri Ramappa was the Pattadar and the owner of the plaint schedule property, who was in possession and enjoyment of the same during her life time. That the said Smt. Siddamma and Ramappa had a daughter by name Smt. Maremma, who was married to one Shri Nadivi Mudukappa. That the plaintiffs are children of said Maremma and Nadivi Mudukappa. 3. That the grandfather of the plaintiffs passed away on 08.04.1984. Smt. Siddamma, the grandmother of the plaintiffs passed away intestate on 09.09.1999. The mother of the plaintiffs namely Smt. Mareamma had predeceased her parents. Thus, after the demise of Smt. Siddamma, plaintiffs being the grandchildren inherited the property and became the absolute owner thereof. 4. That on 25.10.2010, the plaintiffs applied for certified copy of the record of rights of the plaint schedule property and learnt that the defendant No.1 had obtained mutation of her name in the revenue records and thereafter the plaint schedule property mutated in the names of defendant Nos.2 to 5. That the mutation of the names of defendant Nos.1 to 5 in the revenue records was obtained playing fraud on the revenue authorities without the knowledge and consent of the plaintiffs. The said mutation is illegal and contrary to the provisions of law. Defendant Nos.1 to 5 have no right, title and interest over the suit property and as the same originally belonged to their grandmother i.e., Siddamma wife of Ramappa. The said mutation is illegal and contrary to the provisions of law. Defendant Nos.1 to 5 have no right, title and interest over the suit property and as the same originally belonged to their grandmother i.e., Siddamma wife of Ramappa. The mother of the plaintiffs namely Mareamma being the only daughter of Siddamma and Ramappa and the plaintiffs being her children are the only legal representatives to succeed to the estate. Hence, the suit for declaration and consequential relief of possession. 5. The defendants filed written statement contending that the land bearing Sy.No.8 totally measuring 9.80 acres of Somlapur village originally belonged to one Bellary Nagappa; that an extent of 4.80 acres had fallen to the share of his elder son, Bellary Basanna, who is no more. The said extent of 4.80 acres of land was standing in the name of Nellamma, who is none other than the daughter- in-law of late Shri Bellary Basanna. The remaining extent of land measuring 5 acres had fallen to the share of Bellary Ramanna, another son of Bellary Nagappa. The said Bellary Ramanna was cultivating the suit land personally till his demise. After his demise, defendant No.1, who is none other than the wife of Bellary Ramanna was personally cultivating the said land. Defendant Nos.2 to 5 are the children of defendant No.1 and the said Bellary Ramanna. Thus, it is contended that they have inherited the property through their father. Hence, they sought dismissal of the suit. 6. Based on the pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues: 1. Whether the plaintiffs prove that they are the absolute owners of the suit schedule property? 2. Whether the plaintiffs further prove that they are entitled to the possession of the suit schedule property? 3. What Order or Decree? 7. Three witnesses have been examined on behalf of plaintiffs and exhibited 35 documents marked as Exs.P1 to P35. One witness has been examined on behalf of the defendants as DW1 and exhibited 12 documents marked as Exs.D1 to D12. 8. On appreciation of the evidence, the trial court answered issue Nos.1 and 2 in the negative and consequently dismissed the suit solely on the premise that the plaintiffs were taking their claim seeking declaration of title based on the revenue records and without producing the title deeds, they had failed to establish their right, title and interest over the same. 9. 9. Being aggrieved, the plaintiffs preferred appeal in R.A. No.85/2019 before the First Appellate Court. 10. The First Appellate Court framed the following points for its consideration “1. Whether the plaintiffs prove that they are the grandsons of Siddamma, who was pattadar and owner of the suit property? 2. Whether the plaintiffs prove that they are entitle for the relief of declaration and possession of the suit property? 3. Whether the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court needs interference? 4. What order?” 11. On re-appreciation of the evidence, the First Appellate Court answered point Nos.1 to 3 in the affirmative and consequently allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court and decreed the suit as prayed for. 12. Being aggrieved, the defendants are before this Court in this Regular Second Appeal. 13. This Court by order dated 27.08.2021 framed the following substantial question of law for its consideration: “(a) Whether, under the facts and circumstances involved in the case, the first appellate court is justified in declaring the suit of the plaintiffs only on the basis of the revenue documents without there being any title deeds proving the title of the plaintiffs and also by holding the plaintiffs are children of Maremma?” 14. An application in I.A. No.2/2024 is filed by the appellants under Order 41 Rule 27 read with Section 151 of the CPC seeking permission to produce the additional documents. 15. Objections to the said application are filed. 16. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants taking this Court extensively through the records and reiterating the grounds urged in the memorandum of appeal vehemently submits that the First Appellate Court ought not to have reversed the finding and conclusion arrived at by the trial Court. He submits that the trial Court had dismissed the suit on the premise of the plaintiffs not producing the title deeds in respect of the suit property in justification of their claim. That mere production of the revenue records cannot substitute the requirement of production of title deeds. That the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court was inconsonance with the settled proposition of law, which ought not to have been interfered and reversed by the First Appellate Court in the absence of plaintiffs producing any title deeds in justification of their claim. 17. That the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court was inconsonance with the settled proposition of law, which ought not to have been interfered and reversed by the First Appellate Court in the absence of plaintiffs producing any title deeds in justification of their claim. 17. He submits that admittedly the names of the defendants were mutated in the revenue records and reflected on and after the year 2004 and the suit is filed in the year 2011. That the plaintiffs having had the knowledge of defendants being in possession over the years, without producing cogent and acceptable legal evidence were not entitled to the relief of declaration and possession, which the First Appellate Court had lost sight of. 18. Adverting to the application filed under Order 41 Rule 27 of the CPC, learned counsel submits that, the defendants are claiming their title through one Bellary Ramappa, who is the son of Bellary Basappa, who was given portion of land in a partition. He submits that in furtherance to the said pleadings made in the written statement, a document, namely, extract of Register B - Permanent Register of Inams, is being produced, which is necessary for the proper and effective adjudication of the lis between parties. He submits that the appellants were not aware of the said documents, it is only after filing of the appeal, on an enquiry, they found the said document. As such they could not produce the same on earlier occasion. Hence, seeks for permission to produce the same. Application filed for additional documents be allowed and the substantial questions of law be answered in their favour. 19. In response, learned counsel for the plaintiffs at the out set submit that, the pleadings and evidences produced by the defendants are mutually contradictory and distractive, in that, he submits that though in the written statement the defendants claimed their right, title and interest over suit property through and under one Shri Bellary Ramanna, the documents produced by them would indicate that they are claiming right, title and interest through and under Smt. Siddamma claiming her to be sister of defendant No.1. He refers to the document produced at Ex.P20 - the mutation register extract, which reveal that the name of the defendant No.1 is entered in the mutation register on the basis of their claim of they being the legal representatives of the deceased Smt. Siddamma. He refers to the document produced at Ex.P20 - the mutation register extract, which reveal that the name of the defendant No.1 is entered in the mutation register on the basis of their claim of they being the legal representatives of the deceased Smt. Siddamma. He submits that the said document has remained unimpeached. In other words, the defendants have also relied upon the said document to justify their names having been mutated in the revenue records. He further submits that if this aspect of the matter is analysed and scrutinised, plaintiffs, who are the grandchildren of Smt. Siddamma and being her class-I heirs would exclude the defendants from inheritance. 20. As regards the substantial question of law is concerned, learned counsel submits that the principle namely revenue documents cannot be relied upon to grant the relief of declaration, would not apply to the facts of the instant case inasmuch as the name of Smt. Siddamma was reflected in the revenue records from the year 1981 onwards uptill the year 2004. He submits that Ex.P1, VILLAGE FORM II evidencing the fact that Smt. Siddamma, the grandmother of the plaintiffs was Pattadar. Thus, he submits that in the light of the aforesaid admitted factual aspects of the matter, the First Appellate Court was justified in reversing the finding and conclusion arrived at by the trial Court and the substantial question of law would therefore not arise in the instant case. 21. As regards the application filed by the appellants seeking production of additional documents, he submits that apart from the said documents not having been produced as required under law, the said documents refers to name of one Huded Ramappa son of Yanka, while the defendants are claiming right, title and interest through one Shri Bellary Ramanna, who was distinct and different person from the one referred to in the document sought to be produced. He submits that the said document is neither necessary nor required for the purpose of determination of the dispute between the parties, in the light of evidence already made available on record. He further submits that there is no foundational pleading in the written statement with regard to existence or otherwise of such document. Hence, seeks for rejection of the application. 22. Heard. Perused the records. 23. He further submits that there is no foundational pleading in the written statement with regard to existence or otherwise of such document. Hence, seeks for rejection of the application. 22. Heard. Perused the records. 23. The production of additional documents can be permitted only if it falls within the four corners of Order 41 Rule 27 of the CPC, which reads as under: “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, or (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, or (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.” 24. In the affidavit accompanying application, for the first time, it is sought to be pleaded that subject property was granted under the inam and in the name of the father of defendant Nos.2 and 3 and the husband of defendant No.1 namely Huded Ramappa son of Yanka. In the written statement, it is claimed that the property belongs to their grandfather namely Bellary Nagappa, who in a family partition allotted suit schedule property in the name of Bellary Ramappa, husband of defendant No.1 and the father of defendant Nos.2 to 5. Thus, the basis on which the production of additional documents as sought, runs contrary to the pleadings in the written statement. 25. That apart, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondents, the document now sought to be produced contains the name of certain Huded Ramappa son of Yanka which is completely distinct and different from the name of the husband and father of defendant No.1 to 5 respectively. 25. That apart, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondents, the document now sought to be produced contains the name of certain Huded Ramappa son of Yanka which is completely distinct and different from the name of the husband and father of defendant No.1 to 5 respectively. This Court do not see any need or justification in permitting the appellants to produce the said document. Accordingly, the application is rejected. 26. Adverting to the merits of the case and submissions made in justification of the substantial questions of law, it is necessary to note the contents of Ex.P20, which is a Mutation Register extract vide M.R. No.1/2004-05, dated 15.06.2004. In terms of which for the first time the names of the defendants have been mutated in the revenue records. The mutation order referred to the in the said document reads as under: 27. Further, in the said document at Ex.P20 the deceased Smt. Siddamma the earlier Khatedar is shown to be the sister of Smt. Bellary Maremma, who is defendant No.1. There is no dispute or denial by the defendants to the contents of the aforesaid document at Ex.P20, indeed the names of the defendants have continued to be reflected in the revenue records based on the aforesaid mutation register extract. 28. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondents, the aforesaid document would indicate that, even the defendants are claiming their right, title and interest through and under Smt. Siddamma. This aspect of the matter apart from completely contradictory and conflicting with the very case setup by the defendants would also disentitle them from making any claim over the suit property. Inasmuch as assuming if the claim of defendant No.1 being sister of Smt. Siddamma is to be considered, plaintiffs being the grand children of Smt. Siddamma would exclude defendant No.1 from inheriting the property. 29. Since, both plaintiffs and defendants are claiming their right, title and interest over the property through and under Smt. Siddamma, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the principles that the relief of declaration of title could be granted only on the basis of title deeds would not strictly apply to the instant case. 29. Since, both plaintiffs and defendants are claiming their right, title and interest over the property through and under Smt. Siddamma, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the principles that the relief of declaration of title could be granted only on the basis of title deeds would not strictly apply to the instant case. There is no dispute of the fact that Smt. Siddamma was the absolute owner of the property and that her name was reflected in the revenue records as Pattadar from the year 1981 onwards till the year 2004, when the names of defendants were mutated vide Ex.P20, as stated above. 30. Useful also to refer the judgement of the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Smt. Jayamma Venkatram and another Vs. Smt. Ashraf Jahan Begum and another , [ILR 2021 KAR 3559] wherein at paragraph No.22 the Coordinate Bench has held as under: “22. The next question is, whether based on revenue documents, title of the plaintiffs can be declared? It is no doubt a settled position that revenue documents do not confer any title. But here is a case where the plaintiffs can produce no document other than revenue records to prove their title. As has been observed already, the Government issued acquisition notification showing Kyalanoor Muniswamappa as the owner of S.No. 6/1 which adds weightage to the presumptive value attachable to revenue entries. Therefore, I am of the opinion that whenever a person has been in possession of an immovable property, especially ancestral in character, for quite a long time, and revenue entries stand in the lineage of his family continuously without any challenge to it, or if challenged, the same being overruled or rejected; and being not in a position to produce any document conferring title other than revenue records, there is no impediment to declare title based on possession which is otherwise called possessory title. If this kind of interpretation is not given, the title over a property will remain in vacuum, which should not be allowed to happen. Thus looked, the possessory title of plaintiffs 1 and 2 can be declared. The trial court's findings are not at all acceptable; its approach appears to be perverse; it has just proceeded on identity of the property without evaluating the intricacies. Therefore, point (i) is answered in the negative.” 31. Thus looked, the possessory title of plaintiffs 1 and 2 can be declared. The trial court's findings are not at all acceptable; its approach appears to be perverse; it has just proceeded on identity of the property without evaluating the intricacies. Therefore, point (i) is answered in the negative.” 31. The facts of the case at hand and the legal position would make it clear that the judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court reversing the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court would not suffer from any irregularity and illegality and the substantial question of law is answered accordingly. 32. The appeal is therefore fails and the same is dismissed. The judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court is confirmed. 33. The appellants shall hand over the possession of the suit property to the defendants within three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.