JUDGMENT : (M.G.S. KAMAL, J.) 1. This appeal is filed by defendant No.1 since deceased by his legal representatives and defendant No.2, being aggrieved by the judgement and decree dated 13 th December 1996, passed in O.S. No.2/1993 by the Civil Judge at Haveri (for short “the trial Court”) which is confirmed by the judgment and order dated 13 th August 2012, passed in R.A. No.89/2011, by the District Judge at Haveri (for short “the First Appellate Court”). 2. By the said judgment, the suit filed by the plaintiff [now represented by respondents Nos.1(a) to 1(c) herein] was decreed declaring that the plaintiff was entitled to a 3/10 th share in plaint “A” and “C” schedule properties and a 1/3 rd share in plaint “B”, “D” and “E” schedule properties. Defendant Nos.1 to 6 were directed to deliver possession of the plaintiff’s respective shares in plaint “A” to “E” schedule properties. Further, the trial Court held that defendant No.7 was entitled to a 3/10 th share in plaint “A” and “C” schedule properties and a 1/3 rd share in plaint “B”, “D” and “E” schedule properties. Defendant Nos.8 and 9 each were held entitled to a 1/20 th share in plaint “A” and “C” schedule properties, and defendant Nos.10 to 12 each were also held entitled to a 1/20 th share in plaint “A” and “C” schedule properties. The said judgment and decree was. 3. Brief facts of the case are that, one Mahadevappa was the original propositus, who had four sons and two daughters, namely (i) Shivappa, (ii) Kushappa (defendant No.1), (iii) Vittappa (defendant No.7), and (iv) Pandappa (plaintiff), (v) Mahananda and (vi) Sadubai. The first son Shivappa is said to have been born to the Mahadevappa through his first wife and he died about 35 years ago as a bachelor. The second wife of Mahadevappa namely Smt. Sakkubai died in the year 1952, leaving behind her husband Mahadevappa and their three sons and daughters as her sole surviving heirs. Thus, the family, upon her death, consisted of the original propositus, Mahadevappa and the aforesaid three sons. The propositus, Mahadevappa died on 29.07.1961. The sister of the plaintiff’s namely Mahananda, died in the year 1981, leaving behind two daughters namely Gangavva and defendant No.8. Gangavva also passed away, leaving behind defendant No.9 as her legal heir. Thus, the family, upon her death, consisted of the original propositus, Mahadevappa and the aforesaid three sons. The propositus, Mahadevappa died on 29.07.1961. The sister of the plaintiff’s namely Mahananda, died in the year 1981, leaving behind two daughters namely Gangavva and defendant No.8. Gangavva also passed away, leaving behind defendant No.9 as her legal heir. Another sister of the plaintiff’s namely Sadubai, died about 20 years ago, leaving behind her sons, defendant Nos.10 and 11 and her daughter, defendant No.12 as her surviving heirs. Defendant No.2 is the wife of defendant No.1. Defendant Nos.3 to 6 are the children of defendant No.2, and they are residing in the joint family. 4. The suit schedule properties are in the joint possession of the plaintiff and the defendants, and have all along been cultivated and enjoyed by the members of the joint family. Since the original propositus, Mahadevappa, was innocent and not having worldly knowledge, defendant No.1, Kushappa, managed the affairs of the family even during the lifetime of his father. 5. Plaint “B” schedule property is joint family tenanted land, which had been cultivated by all the members of the joint family. The land was granted in favour of defendant No.1 on behalf of the joint family comprising the plaintiff and the defendants. 6. Thus plaintiff claiming his 3/10 th share in the plaint “A” and “C” schedule properties and 1/3 rd share “B”, “D” and “E” schedule properties has filed the above suit for partition and separate possession. 7. Defendant Nos.7 and 10 to 12 filed written statements, adopted by defendant Nos.8 and 9 admitting the plant averments and also admitted the suit schedule properties are the joint family properties of the plaintiff and the defendants and expressed their no objection to granting decree as prayed for. 8. Defendant Nos.1 to 6, though appeared through their counsel, did not file written statement. Accordingly, by order dated 07.10.1993, it was recorded that the written statement as not filed. 9. Based on the pleading available on record, the following issues were framed: 1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for partition and separate possession of his 3/10 th share in plaint “A” and “C” properties and further entitled for 1/3 rd share in suit “B”, “D” and “E” schedule properties? 2) What order or decree? 10. Plaintiff examined himself as PW1 and produced 17 documents, which were marked as Exs.P1 to P17. 2) What order or decree? 10. Plaintiff examined himself as PW1 and produced 17 documents, which were marked as Exs.P1 to P17. No oral or documentary was adduced on behalf of the defendants. 11. The trial Court, upon examining the records and referring to the documents marked as Exs.P1 to P4 and P5 to P12, concluded that the suit schedule properties are joint family properties. It also noted its exception to the illegal entries made in the name of the defendant No.1 in Ex.P13 to P16, which pertain to the plaint “B” schedule property. Thus, based on the appreciation of the evidence led by the plaintiff, the trial Court decreed the suit, as noted above. 12. Being aggrieved, defendant No.1 originally filed an appeal before the District and Sessions Judge, Dharwad, which was dismissed by order dated 14.10.1999. Against which the defendants / appellants herein approached the Apex Court. The Apex Court restored the regular appeal vide its order dated 11.08.2011. Accordingly, the regular appeal was taken up by the First Appellate Court, and it was renumbered as R.A. No.89/2011. Along with the said appeal, the appellants / defendants filed applications under Order 41 Rule 27 of the CPC seeking to produce additional documents, filed as I.A. No.7 and 8. 13. Considering the grounds urged in the appeal, the First Appellate Court framed the following points for its consideration: 1. Whether the judgment and decree of the lower Court is passed in violation of principles of natural justice without affording an opportunity to the appellants? 2. Whether the trial Judge has erred in not framing the proper issue as contended in the appeal memorandum? 3. Whether the appellants have made out the ground to set aside the judgment and decree and remit the matter for fresh disposal as contended in the appeal memorandum? 4. Whether the appellants have made out the ground to allow the application filed under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC to receive the said documents as additional evidence i.e., I.A. Nos.7 and 8? 5. What order? 14. Upon re-appreciation of the matter, the First Appellate Court answered point Nos.1 to 4 in the negative and consequently dismissed the appeal with cost of Rs.5,000/-. It also dismissed the application filed in I.A. Nos.7 and 8. 15. 5. What order? 14. Upon re-appreciation of the matter, the First Appellate Court answered point Nos.1 to 4 in the negative and consequently dismissed the appeal with cost of Rs.5,000/-. It also dismissed the application filed in I.A. Nos.7 and 8. 15. Being aggrieved by the said judgment, the legal representatives of the original defendant No.1 and defendant No.2 have filed the present Regular Second Appeal before this Court. 16. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants, while reiterating the grounds urged in the memorandum of appeal, submitted; (a) That the trial Court decreed the suit merely on the ground that defendant Nos.1 to 6 did not contest the suit, though they were represented by their counsel. He further submitted that no proper or sufficient opportunity was afforded to defendant Nso.1 to 6 before the trial Court to enable them to file a written statement or to lead the evidence. The same grievance was raised with respect to the First Appellate Court, which according to the appellants, did not accept or allow the applications filed in I.A. No.7 and 8 under Order 41 Rule 27 of the CPC for permission to produce additional documents. (b) Thus, referring to these two circumstances, learned counsel submits that, had the appellants / defendant Nos.1 to 6 been provided with an opportunity, they would have brought on record relevant documents to establish that item “B” schedule property was the self acquired property of the deceased Kushappa the defendant No.1, and that the other members of the family had no right, title and interest over the same. (c) That, even though defendant Nos.1 to 6 did not contest the suit, it was incumbent upon both the trial Court and the First Appellate Court to appreciate the material evidence placed on record and satisfy themselves that the suit schedule properties were indeed joint family properties before proceeding to decree the suit. (d) That the plaint “B” schedule property was granted exclusively in the name of Kushappa the defendant No.1, and therefore, only he, his wife and his children were entitled to share the said property and not the other members or children of the propositus Mahadevappa. (e) That the principle applied by the trial Court and the First Appellate Court in the present case is erroneous. (e) That the principle applied by the trial Court and the First Appellate Court in the present case is erroneous. In support of his arguments, he refers to the judgements of the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of MADAN KUMAR VS. RAGHURAM REDDY AND OTHERS , [HCR 2019 Kant. 178] and in the case of BASETTAIAH M.V. DEAD BY LRS. AND OTHERS VS. M.V. VEERABHADRAIAH SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS. AND ANOTHER , [HCR 2019 Kant, 903] . He contends that merely because the defendants did not contest the suit, it was not necessary for the suit to be decreed. He also relied upon the judgment of the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of SHRI PRAKASH BHARMU CHANDGADE VS. SOU. SUVARNA SIKANDAR KANE AND OTHERS , RFA No.4179/2012 C/w. RFA No.4177/2012, DD: 31.05.2017. (f) Relying on the aforesaid judgements and the contentions advanced, learned counsel submits that the present case is a fit case to be remanded to the trail Court, enabling the parties to lead evidence, thereby ensuring that substantial justice is rendered between the parties instead of dismissing their claim on mere technical grounds. Hence, he submits that a substantial question of law arises for consideration in this matter. 17. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff submits that there is no dispute, even by defendant Nos.1 to 6 / appellants herein regarding the suit schedule properties being joint family properties, except for item “B” schedule property. He contends that even the item “B” schedule property is joint family property, as it was under the cultivation of the original propositus, Mahadevappa until his demise. It was only thereafter that an application seeking grant of occupancy rights made in the name of defendant No.1, as he was the eldest member of the family. The grant so made in the name of defendant No.1, he submits, would enure to the benefit of the entire joint family, a fact which has been duly taken note of by both the trial Court and the First Appellate Court. Therefore, he submits that no error or illegality was committed by the trial Court or the First Appellate Court in decreeing the suit and dismissing the appeal filed by defendant Nos.1 to 7. He relies on the judgment of this Court in the case of Shri Irappa Basavanni Kamate and others Vs. Therefore, he submits that no error or illegality was committed by the trial Court or the First Appellate Court in decreeing the suit and dismissing the appeal filed by defendant Nos.1 to 7. He relies on the judgment of this Court in the case of Shri Irappa Basavanni Kamate and others Vs. Shri Gurusidda Apraj Kamate and others , [RFA No.100243/2019, DD: 03.03.2025] in support of his argument. He further contends that the plaintiff furnished sufficient legal evidence before the trial Court to establish that the suit properties were indeed the joint family properties, and the suit was decreed by allotting shares in accordance with law. He points out that defendant Nos.1 to 6, who remained dormant, only woke up to file the appeal nearly 19 years after the date of service of notice in the suit and then sought to produce additional documents at that stage, the First Appellate Court having considered these factual and legal aspects of the matter, has rightly rejected the appeal. Hence, he submits that no substantial question of law arises for consideration and prays for dismissal of the appeal. 18. Heard. Perused the records. 19. The relationship between the parties is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that the deceased Mahadevappa was the original propositus of the family. The suit for partition and separate possession was filed in respect of properties described in item “A” to “E” schedule properties, consisting of landed properties, house properties, and certain movables. Except for defendant Nos.1 to 6, the rest of the defendants admitted the plaint averments, acknowledging that the suit properties were joint family properties and that they were entitled to shares in accordance with law. Based on these pleadings and the documents produced by the plaintiff, the trial Court decreed the suit. 20. Defendant Nos.1 to 3 preferred an appeal being aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court only to the extent of plaint “B” schedule property, bearing Sy.No.66 measuring 24 acres 17 guntas, primarily contending that this property was exclusively allotted to defendant No.1 by the Land Tribunal, as per Ex.P11 and the certificate of grant as per Ex.P12. 21. 21. The First Appellate Court has taken note of the fact that the trial Court by its order dated 07.10.1993 had recorded non-filing of written statement by Defendant No.1 to 6 and three years thereafter i.e., on 06.11.1996, it had framed issues and only then recorded evidence and passed the impugned judgment and decree. That the defendant Nos.1 to 6 who had made their appearance through their counsel did not take any steps in filing the written statement even after expiry of three years from the date of framing of the issues. 22. The First Appellate Court while adverting to the applications filed in I.A.Nos.7 and 8 under Order XLI Rule 27 of CPC by the Defendants 1 to 6 seeking production of additional documents has come to the conclusion that no reason of any nature whatsoever is assigned in the said applications for non-production of documents before the Trial Court except making bald and vague assertions. That apart, the First Appellate Court has also perused the document sought to be produced by defendants and has come to just conclusion that the said documents are not relevant for the purpose of deciding the issues between the parties and accordingly, dismissed the appeal and rejected the applications. 23. Production of additional documents in the appeal is permissible only under the circumstances envisaged under the provisions of Order XLI Rule 27 of Code of Civil Procedure , 1908. Admittedly defendant Nos.1 to 6 sought to produce the documents after 19 years of they appearing before the Trial Court without assigning reasons contemplated under the aforesaid provision of law. 24. Revenue records in respect of schedule ‘A’ properties stand in the name of Mahadevappa the original propositus. Ex.P9 pertains to land in Sy.Nos.51/4, 58/2, 129/1 and 268/2 described in plaint ‘A’ schedule properties. The said document is dated 07.11.1961. These revenue records as rightly taken note of by the Trial Court would indicate that the family of plaintiffs and defendants were indeed in joint possession of the joint family properties even as in the year 1961. 25. Exhibit P11 is the order dated 03.08.1976 passed by the land Tribunal in respect of land in plaint ‘B’ schedule property. These revenue records as rightly taken note of by the Trial Court would indicate that the family of plaintiffs and defendants were indeed in joint possession of the joint family properties even as in the year 1961. 25. Exhibit P11 is the order dated 03.08.1976 passed by the land Tribunal in respect of land in plaint ‘B’ schedule property. Perusal of the said document indicate that defendant No.1 had given a declaration before the Tribunal of he cultivating the said land as a tenant on and after 1966-67 and based on the same Tribunal proceed to pass the order granting the said land in the name of defendant No.1. One of the additional documents sought to be produced by the defendant Nos.1 to 6 is the grant certificate dated 26.08.1974, in which it is stated that applicant-Kushappa Mahadevappa Nelvadi the defendant No.1 was cultivating the land in R.S. No.66 for over 30-32 years. Another document which is an order passed by the Prant Officer, Haveri Division in case No.T.E.N.A.P. No.76/1957 is dated 31.10.1957 in which Kushappa- defendant No.1 is shown as the appellant aged about 27 years. If these three documents are read together, it appears that Kushappa, defendant No1 must have been born during the years 1930-32 and must have been cultivating the land in plaint ‘B’ schedule property from the age of 14-15 years. This is highly improbable. Therefore, the reliance being placed on by the defendant Nos.1 to 6 on these documents to buttress their contention of the said land having been granted exclusively in favour of Kushappa the defendant No.1 without any other member of the family having any right over the property cannot be countenanced. 26. Another aspect of the matter to be seen is in the order dated 31.10.1957 passed by the Prant Officer, Haveri, referred to above is that, the said order passed upon the application filed by the said Kushappa, defendant No.1 on the allegation of he having been disposed from the land by the landlord. 27. From the pleadings in the plaint and the contents of documents referred to herein above it becomes clear that the defendant No.1 was managing the affairs of the family and the joint family properties even during the lifetime of their father Mahadevappa, who admittedly passed away in the year 1961. The documents referred to above relate back to the period during his lifetime. The documents referred to above relate back to the period during his lifetime. It is only in the year 1974 the defendant No.1 has obtained the grant order claiming to have been cultivating the land from the year 1966-67. It is for this reason the Trial Court at paragraph No.10 of its judgement has observed that “further Ex.P13 to P16 disclose as to how the defendant No.1 got illegal entries affected in the revenue records in respect of plaint ‘B’ schedule properties”. 28. Suffice to state that the Trial Court has indeed gone through the revenue records produced by the plaintiffs in detail and it is only on the appreciation of the material evidence, has come to the categorical conclusion that the suit property including the plaint ‘B’ schedule property are the joint family properties. Therefore, the contention being urged by the appellants’ counsel relying upon the judgment of Co-Ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of MADAN KUMAR (supra) is of no avail. 29. The Trial Court has not passed the decree merely because there was no contest by the defendants 1 to 6 but on plaintiff proving that the suit schedule properties including plaint ‘B’ schedule property being the joint family properties. 30. The First Appellate Court on perusal of the material sought to be produced in the light of provisions of Order XLI Rule 27 of CPC has come to the conclusion that the defendant Nos.1 to 6 did not make out ground for production of additional documents after lapse of 19 years of they having knowledge of the suit. This Court cannot find any fault with the said reasoning and the conclusion arrived by the First Appellate Court either. 31. One of the grounds for allowing production of additional document as provided under order 41 Rule 27(b) of CPC is that if the Court finds production of additional documents or examination of any witness necessary enabling it to pronounce judgement or for any substantial cause. In the instant case, as noted above the discrepancies in the dates of grant and the age of the defendant No.1 would not justify the consideration of production of additional document even the said ground. Remanding the matter as requested by the counsel for the appellants would therefore be an exercise in futility. 32. In the instant case, as noted above the discrepancies in the dates of grant and the age of the defendant No.1 would not justify the consideration of production of additional document even the said ground. Remanding the matter as requested by the counsel for the appellants would therefore be an exercise in futility. 32. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the considered view that, the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court have committed no error in decreeing the suit and dismissing the application filed by the appellants. No substantial question of law would arise for consideration. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.