JUDGMENT : ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY, J. 1. This appeal has been filed challenging the part of judgment dated 28 th February, 2020 [decree sealed and signed on 7 th March, 2020] passed by the Additional District Judge-II, Hazaribag in Title Appeal No. 82 of 2012 whereby the appellate court partly allowed the appeal. The trial court judgement is dated 29 th September, 2012 [decree sealed and signed on 12 th October 2012] passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Hazaribag in Title Suit No. 147/2000. The learned trial court had decreed the plaintiffs’ right, title, interest over the land of Khata No. 247, Plot No. 2447 & 2452 Area 10 decimals each of village Maskidih, P.S. Barkatha, District Hazaribag described in Schedule-I of the plaint. 2. The Schedule I of the plaint was relating to khata No. 247 plot no. 2447 (area 10 decimal) and khata no. 247 plot no. 2452 (area 10 decimal) and also khata no. 131 plot no. 2810 (area 2 decimal). 3. This second appeal was admitted for hearing vide order dated 12.06.2023 on the following substantial question of law: - “Whether the learned first appellate court committed gross illegality by not considering the records of Case No. 524 of 1967 brought on record of the First Appeal along with the petition filed under Order XLI Rule 27 of Code of Civil Procedure; in respect of which, though vide order dated 25.02.2019, the learned first appellate court mentioned that appropriate order would be passed in respect of the said petition filed under Order XLI Rule 27 of Code of Civil Procedure yet neither any order was passed in respect of the said petition under Order XLI Rule 27 of Code of Civil Procedure nor the same was considered; without any rhyme or reason?” 4. Considering the substantial question of law, in this case we are concerned with a part of schedule-I property, that is, khata no. 247 plot no. 2447 (area 10 decimal) and khata no. 247 plot no. 2452 (area 10 decimal). Arguments of the appellants. 5. At the appellate stage, additional evidence was filed on behalf of the appellants [who were defendant Nos. 1 and 4 in the title suit] to bring on record the certified copy of order-sheet of Case No. 524/1967 of Survey Settlement Office of Hazaribagh. 247 plot no. 2452 (area 10 decimal). Arguments of the appellants. 5. At the appellate stage, additional evidence was filed on behalf of the appellants [who were defendant Nos. 1 and 4 in the title suit] to bring on record the certified copy of order-sheet of Case No. 524/1967 of Survey Settlement Office of Hazaribagh. As per order dated 25.02.2019 passed by the appellate court, the certified copy of the order-sheet in Case No. 524/1967 of Survey Settlement Office of Hazaribagh obtained from the record room, Hazaribagh was filed and the learned court specifically recorded that at that stage the document could not be considered, but at the time of final hearing of the appeal and after appreciating the evidence on record if the court reaches to the conclusion that the document mentioned in the petition was required as an additional evidence to pronounce the judgment, then appropriate order will be passed in this regard. The learned counsel has submitted that the judgment passed by the appellate court does not refer to the certified copy of the order-sheet of Case No. 524/1967 of Survey Settlement Office. He has also submitted that the said certified copy which was sought to be adduced as additional evidence has been produced before this court for perusal at the time of admission and now it has been annexed along with the records of this case. 6. He has referred to the aforesaid document (additional evidence) and has submitted that the Case No. 524/1967 of Survey Settlement Office was relating to the case of one Vatan Modi and others and it had nothing to do with the plaintiffs of this case. The learned counsel has submitted that the entire case of the plaintiffs was primarily based on the entry made in the Khatiyan by way of a note which referred to Case No. 524/1967 and accordingly if the order-sheet of Case No. 524/1967 was not concerning the parties of this case, then the very basis of the claim of the plaintiffs would not exist and consequently, the suit itself was fit to be dismissed with regards to the property of Khata No. 247, Plot No. 2447 & 2452 Area 10 decimals each of village Maskidih, P.S. Barkatha, District Hazaribag. The said additional evidence goes to the root of the matter having not been considered by the first appellate court has caused prejudice to the appellants. The said additional evidence goes to the root of the matter having not been considered by the first appellate court has caused prejudice to the appellants. The learned counsel has also placed the note in the khatiyan during the course of arguments. 7. The learned counsel for the appellants has also placed the plaint and written statement of respective parties and has submitted that it was the specific case of the defendant Nos. 3 and 4 who had filed their written statement that the order in Case No. 524/1967 was fraudulently obtained. 8. The learned counsel has relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in (2012) 8 SCC 148 paragraph 36 to 52 to submit that as per Order XLI Rule 27 of C.P.C, the document through additional evidence is to be considered at the time of final hearing and if the Court finds it difficult to pronounce the judgment, then such additional evidence can be looked into. He has submitted that had the appellate court looked into the aforesaid additional evidence, the decision would have been different as the very basis of the claim of the plaintiffs would have been demolished. 9. The learned counsel for the appellants has placed the exhibited khatiyan in which Misc. Case No. 524/1967 under Section 87 of the Chhota Nagpur Tenancy Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘CNT Act”) has been mentioned by way of note under the signature of Additional Settlement Officer, Hazaribagh. Observations of this Court during the course of hearing also recorded in order dated 24.02.2025. 10. During the course of argument, it transpired that the additional evidence which was sought to be adduced by the appellants was having case No. 524/1967 but was relating to case under Section 90 of the CNT Act and was relating to a proceeding of Survey Settlement Officer, Hazaribagh. It is not in dispute that jurisdiction exercised under section 87 of the CNT Act is different from the jurisdiction exercised under Section 90 of the CNT Act. However, during the course of argument, it is not in dispute that the certified copy of order-sheet of Case No. 524/1967 of Survey Settlement Office of Hazaribagh which was sought to be introduced by way of additional evidence mentioned that the case was under Section 90 of the CNT Act. Findings of this Court 11. However, during the course of argument, it is not in dispute that the certified copy of order-sheet of Case No. 524/1967 of Survey Settlement Office of Hazaribagh which was sought to be introduced by way of additional evidence mentioned that the case was under Section 90 of the CNT Act. Findings of this Court 11. The title suit was filed seeking a declaration of title over the suit land described in Schedule-I to the plaint and for confirmation of possession. A further relief was prayed to declare the registered deed of gift bearing No. 1927 dated 22.02.1995 as forged, fabricated, illegal, inoperative and not binding on the plaintiffs. A prayer was also made for a decree of permanent injunction against the defendants from interfering with the possession of the plaintiffs over the suit property. 12. The specific case of the plaintiffs was that the aforesaid land of plot No. 2447 and 2452 in Khata No. 247, area 10 decimal each was recorded in the record of rights as Raiyati Kayami land in the name of Bibi Sajiwan Nisha @ Safina Khatun, wife of Munsi Mian in the last revisional survey which was her self-acquired property. In revisional survey, it was wrongly recorded in the name of Bibi Jhalia, wife of Gopi Mian and was wrongly stated to be under khata No. 98 instead of current Khata No. 247. Against such wrong entry, Bibi Sajiwan NIsha filed a case under Section 87 of the CNT Act against the State of Bihar as well as against Bibi Jhalia and wrong entry in the name of Bibi Jhalia was rectified and consequently, Khata No. 98 was rectified as Khata No. 247 and the name of Bibi Jhalia was struck off and the name of Bibi Sajiwan Nisha was entered. Thereafter, Bibi Sajiwan Nisha remained in peaceful cultivating possession of the aforesaid property in Khata No. 247. 13. It was the further case of the plaintiffs that Bibi Sajiwan Nisha was the first wife of Munsi Mian and had one son, namely, Sikander Ali whereas Bibi Hado was the second wife who had two sons, namely, Md. Lukman and Md. Daud Ali; Sikander Ali had given share of his aforesaid two step brothers, namely, Md. Lukman and Md. Daud Ali and all three of them were having joint right, title, interest and possession of the aforesaid two plots i.e. Plot Nos. 2447 and 2452. Lukman and Md. Daud Ali; Sikander Ali had given share of his aforesaid two step brothers, namely, Md. Lukman and Md. Daud Ali and all three of them were having joint right, title, interest and possession of the aforesaid two plots i.e. Plot Nos. 2447 and 2452. It was further case of the plaintiffs that plaintiff No. 1 [Sikander Ali] never sold any land of the aforesaid plots and that Bibi Karima Khatoon and Bibi Nuresha Khatoon and their husbands had no right, title and possession or any concern with the aforesaid land. It was alleged in the plaint that in the year 1995, the aforesaid defendants had falsely impersonated the plaintiff No. 1 [Sikander Ali] and got forged deed executed and registered on his behalf in the name of Bibi Karima Khatoon and Bibi Nuresha Khatoon vide gift deed No. 1927 dated 22.02.1995. A criminal case was also lodged, but the accused in the criminal case begged apology and consequently the plaintiff No. 1 [Sikander Ali] withdrew the criminal case. However, in the first week of June 1999, suddenly defendants quarreled with the plaintiffs and challenged the title with respect to suit land which was a cause of action to file the suit. 14. The defendant Nos. 1 and 2 did not file their written statement and the court proceeded against defendant Nos. 1 and 2 under Order VIII Rule 10 of CPC. However, written statement was filed on behalf of defendant No. 3 [husband of defendant no.1] and defendant no. 4 [husband of defendant no.2]. The defendant nos.3 and 4 took a specific plea in the written statement that they have exclusive physical possession over the suit land ; they had inherited the property from their father; it was false to say that the suit land was ever recorded in the name of Bibi Sajiwan Nisha but the land was recorded as G.M. Khas land of ex-landlord Radhika Ram Modi and others who made Raiyati Kayami settlement in the name of Gopi Mian, Jhuni Mian, Tiper Mian and Guli Mian by sada unregistered Hukumnama of the year 1935. It was their specific case that by virtue of Hukumnama, the ex-landlord settled the land of Khata No. 56 of village Maskedih plot No. 879, area 62 decimals and plot No. 902, area 26 decimals, total area 88 decimals in favour of aforesaid settlees who came in possession and in the revisional survey it was found that 28 decimals of land of old cadastral survey was shown in exclusive possession of Mosmat Jhalia and therefore in the revisional survey, said 28 decimals was shown in khata No. 98 (new) consisting of Plot No. 2446, 8 decimal; plot No. 2447, 10 decimal and plot No. 2452, 10 decimal in the name of Mosmat Jhalia. It was asserted that it was wrong to say that Bibi Sajiwan NIsha had any right, title, interest and possession over the two plots i.e. Plot No. 2447 area 10 decimals and plot No. 2452 area 10 decimals. 15. With respect to story of getting order under Section 87 of the CNT Act from the revenue office against Bibi Jhalia and in favour of Bibi Sajiwan Nisha, it was the specific case in the written statement of defendant nos.3 and 4 that such order was a result of fraud. It was specifically stated in the written statement that defendant Nos. 3 and 4 or their mother Bibi Jhalia never got any notice from the revenue court and the plaintiffs had managed to suppress the actual service of notice and got the order ex-parte at the back of the defendants. It was also asserted that by the time, the order passed under Section 87 of the CNT Act was passed, Mosmat Jhalia was dead and therefore the said order was against a dead person. It was the specific case of the defendant nos.3 and 4 in the written statement that the defendants never knew about the order passed under Section 87 of the CNT Act against Mosmat Jhalia. It was also asserted that the plaintiffs had fraudulently managed to have the order in the name of Bibi Sajiwan Nisha and the story of rectification of revisional survey in the record of rights was false. It was denied that Bibi Sajiwan Nisha ever cultivated the land; it was asserted that it was not true that Munsi Mian had second wife, namely Bibi Hado and therefore the plea of the plaintiffs that Md. Lukman and Md. It was denied that Bibi Sajiwan Nisha ever cultivated the land; it was asserted that it was not true that Munsi Mian had second wife, namely Bibi Hado and therefore the plea of the plaintiffs that Md. Lukman and Md. Daud were sons of Munsi Mian was wrong. The allegation of impersonation of plaintiff No. 1 [Sikander Ali] to execute the gift deed was denied, it was asserted that the gift was valid and that the defendants had also perfected title over the suit land. 16. On the basis of the pleadings, the learned trial court framed following 9 issues: - (I) Is the suit maintainable as framed? (II) Has the plaintiff any valid cause of action for this suit? (III) Whether the suit is barred by law of limitation and adverse possession? (IV) Whether the suit is bad for misjoinder and non-joinder of necessary parties? (V) Whether the suit is barred by provisions of Special Relief Act? (VI) Whether the suit is hit by Estoppel and acquiescence? (VII) Whether the plaintiff has valid right, title, interest as well as possession over the suit land? (VIII) Whether the registered deed of gift bearing no. 1927 Dt. 22.2.95 registered on 24.2.95 is forged, illegal, inoperative and not binding on the plaintiffs? (IX) Whether plaintiff is entitled to any other relief or reliefs as claimed? 17. At the stage of trial, both oral and documentary evidences were led. 18. With respect issue no. VIII relating to the registered gift deed, the learned trial court recorded that it was the case of the plaintiffs that defendant Nos. 1 and 2 had got a false gift deed executed by impersonating another person Sikander Ali. The learned trial court recorded that there was admission from the side of the defendant Nos. 3 and 4 that they were not claiming their right, title over the suit land through the deed of gift as they themselves had stated that no such gift deed was ever executed either in their favour or in favour of their wives. The learned trial court recorded a finding that the defendant Nos. 3 and 4 were the husbands of defendant Nos. 1 and 2 respectively and since they had admitted before the learned court through their written statement that no such gift deed was obtained by the defendant Nos. The learned trial court recorded a finding that the defendant Nos. 3 and 4 were the husbands of defendant Nos. 1 and 2 respectively and since they had admitted before the learned court through their written statement that no such gift deed was obtained by the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 from the plaintiff Sikandar Ali, the plaintiff’s claims that gift deed No. 1927 dated 22.02.1995 registered on 24.02.1995 to be declared forged, illegal, inoperative and not binding over plaintiffs stood proved. Thus, issue No. VIII was decided in favour of the plaintiffs by the learned trial court. 19. Both the issue Nos. VII and VIII were decided in favour of the plaintiffs by the learned trial court. 20. The issue Nos. VII and VIII were taken up together and the discussion of the documentary evidences of the plaintiffs as recorded in the trial court’s judgment reveals that exhibit -2 is the certified copy of Khaitan of khata no. 98 and in exhibit-2 there is a note given by the Assistant Settlement Officer, Hazaribagh, stating that in Misc. Case No.524/1967 under section 87 of CNT Act, it has been ordered that the land of Plot No. 2447 and 2452 of Khata No. 98 is being recorded in Khata No. 247; exhibit-2/A is the certified copy of khatiyan of Khata No. 131 and Similarly in Exhibit-2/A there was a clear note given by the Assistant Settlement Officer, Hazaribag that in Misc. Case No. 320/1967 under Section 87 of the CNT Act, it was ordered that the land of Plot No. 1882 of Khata No. 131 was being recorded in khata No. 204 after deletion of the same from khata No. 131. The learned trial court also recorded that these two documentary evidences were also supported by the oral evidences of the plaintiffs as plaintiff No. 1 himself deposed as P.W.-1 and supported his case in examination-in-chief and other P.Ws. i.e. P.W.-2 and P.W.-3 had also supported the plaintiffs’ case. The learned trial court further recorded that it was the specific case of the defendants that in revisional survey the suit land was recorded in the name of Mosmat Jhalia in Khata No. 98 in supported of which they had filed Jamindari receipts marked exhibit A and A/1 and also certified copy of khatiyan of khata No. 98. The learned trial court further recorded that it was the specific case of the defendants that in revisional survey the suit land was recorded in the name of Mosmat Jhalia in Khata No. 98 in supported of which they had filed Jamindari receipts marked exhibit A and A/1 and also certified copy of khatiyan of khata No. 98. The learned trial court recorded that from perusal of exhibit-B, it was apparent that on the face of exhibit-B, the Assistant Settlement Officer, Hazaribagh had given an endorsement over the certified copy of Khatiyan that under Section 87 of the CNT Act land of plot no. 2447 and 2452 of khata No. 98 was being recorded in khata No. 247. The learned trial court recorded that it was being proved from exhibit-2 that the land of khata No. 247 was recorded in the name of Bibi Sajiwan Nisha. The learned trial court held that thus these facts stood admitted by the defendants that in the record of rights suit lands of plot Nos. 2447 and 2452 was recorded in the name of Bibi Sajiwan Nisha, the mother of the plaintiff No. 1 [Sikander Ali]. The learned trial court further recorded that defendants had supported their case through oral evidence but the defendants were not examined and, in their absence, adverse inference may be drawn against them. However, the learned trial court further scrutinized the documentary evidences and held that since exhibit-2 and 2/A as well as exhibit-B clearly shows that after wrong entry in the record of rights during revisional survey regarding land of plot No. 2447 and 2452 of khata No. 247 and regarding land of plot No. 2810 of khata No. 131 which were challenged by the original recorded tenant of khata No. 247 and khata No. 204 respectively under Section 87 of the CNT Act and after proper adjudication the same was rectified and the lands were re-entered in the name of mother and father of plaintiff No. 1 respectively and concluded that the plaintiffs have been able to establish their right, title, interest and possession over the suit property. Thus, the learned trial court on the basis of exhibit-2 and 2/A produced from the side of the plaintiffs and exhibit-B produced from the side of the defendants recorded that it stood admitted by the defendants that in the record of rights, suit land of plot No. 2447 and 2452 in khata no. 247 were recorded in the name of mother of the plaintiff and the wrong entries were duly rectified by order passed under Section 87 of the CNT Act in connection with which a note given in the Khaitan itself by the Assistant Settlement Officer, Hazaribagh stating that in Misc. Case No. 524/1967 under Section 87 of CNT Act, it has been ordered that the land of Plot No. 2447 and 2452 of Khata No. 98 is being recorded in Khata No. 247. 21. This Court finds that the trial court’s judgement, with regards to entry in the Khaitan with respect to property covered by plot no. 2447 and 2452, was primarily based on the notes in the Khaitan in Misc. Case No. 524/1967 under Section 87 of the CNT Act, whereby it has been ordered that the land of Plot No. 2447 and 2452 of Khata No. 98 is being recorded in Khata No. 247 but the order,-sheet/records of case no. 524 of 1967 was not exhibited at the stage of trial. It was in connection with case no. 524 of 1967 the additional evidence was filed at the appellate stage with which we are concerned in this second appeal and with respect to which the substantial question of law has been framed. 22. Before the learned appellate court , the defendant Nos. 2 and 4 challenged the judgment passed by the learned trial court and following points for determination were framed by the learned appellate court: - (i) Whether the plaintiffs have got right, title, interest and possession over the suit lands of khata No. 247 Plot No. 2447 area 0.10 decimals and khata No. 247 Plot No. 2452 area 0.10 decimals of village Maskidih, P.S. Barkatha District Hazaribag mentioned in schedule I of the plaint? (ii) Whether the plaintiffs have got right, title, interest and possession over the suit lands of khata No. 131 Plot No. 2810 area 0.02 (out of 0.24 decimals) of village Maskidh P.S. Barkatha District Hazaribag mentioned in schedule I of the plaint? (ii) Whether the plaintiffs have got right, title, interest and possession over the suit lands of khata No. 131 Plot No. 2810 area 0.02 (out of 0.24 decimals) of village Maskidh P.S. Barkatha District Hazaribag mentioned in schedule I of the plaint? (iii) Whether the registered deed of gift bearing No. 1927 dated 22.02.1995 registered on 24.02.1995 is forged, illegal, inoperative and not binding on the plaintiffs? (iv) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the reliefs as prayed in the plaint? 23. The point of determination No. (ii) was decided in favour of the defendants and against the plaintiffs vide paragraph No. 23 and the appeal was partly allowed; point of determination No. (iii) was decided against the defendants and in favour of the plaintiffs and the judgment of the learned trial court with respect to gift deed was sustained by giving concurrent findings. 24. With respect to point of determination No. (i) the learned appellate court gave concurrent findings and held that the plaintiffs have got right, title, interest and possession over the suit land with respect to Khata No. 247, plot No. 2447 area 10 decimals, khata No. 247 plot No. 2452 area 10 decimals of village Maskedih mentioned in Schedule-I of the plaint. The main discussions and findings of the learned appellate court is in paragraph 21 and 22 which reads as under: - “21. To support their claim over the suit land with respect to khata no.247 plot no.2447 and plot no.2452 area 10 decimals each in both the plots plaintiffs have filed certified copy of khatiyan of khata no.98 and certified copy of khatiyan of khata no.247 which have been marked as Ext.2. In both the khatiyan a note has been given by the Assistant Settlement Officer, Hazaribag that in Misc. Case no.524/1967 U/s-87 CNT Act it has been ordered that the lands of plot no.2447 and 2452 of khata no.98 be recorded in khata no.247. Khatiyan of khata no.247 filed on behalf of the plaintiffs shows that the same khata is in the name of Bibi Sajiwan. With respect to the entries made in the above mentioned khatiyan regarding the note given by the Assistant Settlement Officer, Hazaribag the same has been supported by PW-1 Sikander Ali. Other witnesses of the plaintiffs namely PW-2 Md. Khalil & PW-3 Mahsin Kamal have also supported the case of the plaintiffs. 22. With respect to the entries made in the above mentioned khatiyan regarding the note given by the Assistant Settlement Officer, Hazaribag the same has been supported by PW-1 Sikander Ali. Other witnesses of the plaintiffs namely PW-2 Md. Khalil & PW-3 Mahsin Kamal have also supported the case of the plaintiffs. 22. The defendants to support their case have filed Zamindari rent receipts which have marked as Ext. A and Al and have also filed a certified copy of khatiyan of khata no.98 which has marked as Ext.B. The khatiyan of khata no.98 has also been filed on behalf of the plaintiffs which has been marked as Ext.2. It means that the defendants are admitting this fact that in Misc. Case no.524/1967 U/s- 87 CNT Act it has been ordered that the lands of plot no.2447 and 2452 of khata no.98 be recorded in khata no.247. Certified copy of khatiyan of khata no.247 is in the name of Bibi Sajiwan who is mother of plaintiff no.1 Sikandar Ali. It has been admitted by the defendant no.3 and 4 in their pleading regarding the above mentioned correction made in the khatiyan. None of the defendants in this case have been examined as witness. From Ext 2 and Ext.B it is evident that there was wrong entry in the record of right during revisional survey with respect to plot no.2447 and 2452 of khata no.247 and after challenge the same was rectified and the aforesaid lands were re-entered in the name of Sajiwan Nisha who is mother of plaintiff no.1. In the written statement it has been pleaded that the plaintiffs clandestinely hobnobbed managed to suppress the actual service of notice and got the order exparte. The defendants have claimed the suit land on the basis of hukumnama (Ext D) and zamindari rent receipts (Ext A and Ext A/1). The unregistered hukumnama, though inadmissible, could be looked into to show the nature and character of possession. Besides hukumnama and zamindari rent receipts there is no other document to support the case of the defendants. On the other hand Ext 2 and Ext B Khatiyan supports the case of the plaintiffs. It is a settled law that presumption of truth is attached to the record of right (khatiyan) As such Ext 2 and Ext B has to be relied and the same supports the case of the plaintiffs. On the other hand Ext 2 and Ext B Khatiyan supports the case of the plaintiffs. It is a settled law that presumption of truth is attached to the record of right (khatiyan) As such Ext 2 and Ext B has to be relied and the same supports the case of the plaintiffs. In the present case none of the defendants have been examined as witness to support their pleadings. I do not find any material on record for not relying on the rectification done in certified copy of khatiyan of khata no.98 and certified copy of khatiyan of khata no.247. As such on the basis of above mentioned discussion I come to the conclusion that the plaintiffs have got right title and interest and possession with respect to lands of khata no.247, plot no.2447, area 10 decimals, khata no.247, plot no.2452, area 10 decimals of village Maskidih, P.S Barkatha District Hazaribag. Accordingly Point No 1 is decided in favour of the plaintiffs.” 25. Before this Court, the defendant no. 2 and 4 are aggrieved by the decision of the first appellate court with respect to point of determination No. (i) confirming the decision of the learned trial court in connection with issue no. (vii) which is in connection with the aforesaid property in khata No. 247 plot No. 2447 and 2452 and the scope of consideration is primarily with regards to the additional evidence relating to certified copy of order-sheet in Case No. 524/1967 of Survey Settlement Office of Hazaribag at the appellate stage as is apparent from the substantial question of law framed in this case. 26. At the appellate stage, the appellants [defendant no. 2 and 4] filed petition seeking to adduce additional evidence under Order XLI Rule 27 read with Section 151 of CPC with regards to, interalia, certified copy of order-sheet in Case No. 524/1967 of Survey Settlement Office of Hazaribag obtained from the record room of Hazaribag. On the additional evidence, an order dated 25.02.2019 was drawn by the learned appellate court, whose operative portion reads as under: - “Perused the record. It appears from the record that at the appellate stage the appellants have filed this petition for marking the documents mentioned in the petition as an exhibit by way of additional evidence. On the additional evidence, an order dated 25.02.2019 was drawn by the learned appellate court, whose operative portion reads as under: - “Perused the record. It appears from the record that at the appellate stage the appellants have filed this petition for marking the documents mentioned in the petition as an exhibit by way of additional evidence. In my opinion at this stage without hearing final argument of the parties, it cannot be said that the documents mentioned in the petition if taken into evidence and marked as an exhibit will enable the court to pronounce the Judgment. At the time of final hearing of the appeal at the stage when after appreciating the evidence on record the court reaches to the conclusion that the documents mentioned in the petition is required as additional evidence to be taken on record to pronounce the Judgment, then at that time appropriate order will be passed in this regard. Accordingly, the petition is hereby disposed of. Put up the record for argument on 19.03.2019.” 27. The principles governing appreciation of additional evidence at appellate stage has been considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the judgement relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellants [defendant no. 2 and 4] reported in (2012) 8 SCC 148 wherein it has been held that the application regarding additional evidence is to be decided at the time of hearing of the appeal and if the Court finds it difficult to pronounce the judgment, then such additional evidence can be looked into and it has been argued that had the appellate court looked into the aforesaid additional evidence, the decision would have been different as the very basis of the claim of the plaintiffs would have been demolished. 28. In the said judgment, the plaintiff had sought a declaration of title and ownership of the suit property and the suit was dismissed, but the appellate Court had reversed the judgment and decree of the Civil Court and the judgment of the appellate Court was upheld by the High Court in Second Appeal. The defendant – Union of India was the appellant before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The defendant – Union of India was the appellant before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In the said case, the plaintiff had filed application under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking to adduce additional evidence which was allowed by the learned First Appellate Court much prior to hearing of the First Appeal by observing that proper reason was given for not producing one Will before the trial Court and the additional evidence was taken into account while finally hearing and deciding the First Appeal which was decided in favour of the plaintiffs by the learned First Appellate Court. The defendants who were the appellant before the Hon'ble Supreme Court were aggrieved by the manner in which the First Appellate Court had allowed the petition under Order XLI Rule 27 much prior to the final hearing of the case and the Hon'ble Supreme Court after elaborately considering the principles in connection with adducing additional evidence and holding that the application under Order XLI Rule 27 is to be heard at the time of final hearing of the First Appeal, ultimately held that the order by which the additional evidence was taken on record by the First Appellate Court prior to final hearing of the First Appeal was required to be ignored. The paragraphs 36 to 53 of the aforesaid judgment deal with Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure and paragraphs 49 to 53 deal with the stage of consideration of Order XLI Rule 27 of CPC. Some of the paragraphs of the aforesaid judgment which are relevant for the purposes of the present case are quoted as under: “Order 41 Rule 27 CPC 36. The general principle is that the appellate court should not travel outside the record of the lower court and cannot take any evidence in appeal. However, as an exception, Order 41 Rule 27 CPC enables the appellate court to take additional evidence in exceptional circumstances. The appellate court may permit additional evidence only and only if the conditions laid down in this Rule are found to exist. The parties are not entitled, as of right, to the admission of such evidence. Thus, the provision does not apply, when on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court can pronounce a satisfactory judgment. The appellate court may permit additional evidence only and only if the conditions laid down in this Rule are found to exist. The parties are not entitled, as of right, to the admission of such evidence. Thus, the provision does not apply, when on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court can pronounce a satisfactory judgment. The matter is entirely within the discretion of the court and is to be used sparingly. Such a discretion is only a judicial discretion circumscribed by the limitation specified in the Rule itself. 41. The words “for any other substantial cause” must be read with the word “requires” in the beginning of the sentence, so that it is only where, for any other substantial cause, the appellate court requires additional evidence, that this Rule will apply e.g. when evidence has been taken by the lower court so imperfectly that the appellate court cannot pass a satisfactory judgment. 47. Where the additional evidence sought to be adduced removes the cloud of doubt over the case and the evidence has a direct and important bearing on the main issue in the suit and interest of justice clearly renders it imperative that it may be allowed to be permitted on record, such application may be allowed. Stage of consideration 49. An application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC is to be considered at the time of hearing of appeal on merits so as to find out whether the documents and/or the evidence sought to be adduced have any relevance/bearing on the issues involved. 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 able 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 v. Kartar Singh and Natha Singh v. Financial Commr., Taxation.) 50. 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 v. Kartar Singh and Natha Singh v. Financial Commr., Taxation.) 50. In Parsotim Thakur v. Lal Mohar Thakur49 it was held : (LW pp. 86-87) “… The provisions of Section 107, Civil Procedure Code, as elucidated by Order 41 Rule 27, are clearly not intended to allow a litigant who has been unsuccessful in the lower court to patch up the weak parts of his case and fill up omissions in the court of appeal. … Under Rule 27, clause (1)(b), it is only where the appellate court ‘requires’ it (i.e. finds it needful)…. The legitimate occasion for the exercise of this discretion is not whenever before the appeal is heard a party applies to adduce fresh evidence, but ‘when on examining the evidence as it stands, some inherent lacuna or defect becomes apparent’. … It may well be that the defect may be pointed out by a party, or that a party may move the court to supply the defect, but the requirement must be the requirement of the court upon its appreciation of evidence as it stands. Wherever the court adopts this procedure it is bound by Rule 27(2) to record its reasons for so doing and under Rule 29 must specify the points to which the evidence is to be confined and record on its proceedings the points so specified. … the power so conferred upon the court by the Code ought to be very sparingly exercised, and one requirement at least of any new evidence to be adduced should be that it should have a direct and important bearing on a main issue in the case.” (emphasis added) (See also Indrajit Pratap Sahi v. Amar Singh.) 51. In Arjan Singh v. Kartar Singh this Court held : (AIR pp. 195-96, paras 7-8) “7. … If the additional evidence was allowed to be adduced contrary to the principles governing the reception of such evidence, it would be a case of improper exercise of discretion, and the additional evidence so brought on the record will have to be ignored and the case decided as if it was non-existent. … 8. … The order allowing the appellant to call the additional evidence is dated 17-8-1942. … 8. … The order allowing the appellant to call the additional evidence is dated 17-8-1942. The appeal was heard on 24-4- 1942. There was thus no examination of the evidence on the record and a decision reached that the evidence as it stood disclosed a lacuna which the court required to be filled up for pronouncing its judgment.” (emphasis added) 52. Thus, from the above, it is crystal clear that an application for taking additional evidence on record at an appellate stage, even if filed during the pendency of the appeal, is to be heard at the time of the final hearing of the appeal at a stage when after appreciating the evidence on record, the court reaches the conclusion that additional evidence was required to be taken on record in order to pronounce the judgment or for any other substantial cause. In case, the application for taking additional evidence on record has been considered and allowed prior to the hearing of the appeal, the order being a product of total and complete non-application of mind, as to whether such evidence is required to be taken on record to pronounce the judgment or not, remains inconsequential/inexecutable and is liable to be ignored. 53. In the instant case, the application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC was filed on 6-4-1998 and it was allowed on 28-4-1999 though the first appeal was heard and disposed of on 15-10-1999. In view of law referred to hereinabove, the order dated 28-4-1999 is just to be ignored.” 29. In the present case, the petition under Order XLI Rule 27 of CPC was taken up by the learned First Appellate Court on 25.02.2019 much prior to the final hearing of the First Appeal and the appellate Court was of the opinion that without hearing final argument of the parties it could not be said at that point of time that the documents mentioned in the petition, if taken into evidence and marked as exhibit would enable the court to pronounce the judgment. It was also observed that at the time of final hearing of the appeal, at the stage when after appreciating the evidence on record the court reaches to the conclusion that the documents mentioned in the petition is required as additional evidence to be taken on record to pronounce the judgment, then appropriate order will be passed in that regard. It was also observed that at the time of final hearing of the appeal, at the stage when after appreciating the evidence on record the court reaches to the conclusion that the documents mentioned in the petition is required as additional evidence to be taken on record to pronounce the judgment, then appropriate order will be passed in that regard. The approach of the first appellate court while passing order dated 25.02.2019 was in consonance with the aforesaid judgement passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 30. However, the first appellate Court while passing the judgment apparently did not find any difficulty in pronouncing the judgment. However, at the same time, no reference was made to the additional evidence i.e. the certified copy of the order-sheet in Case No. 524 of 1967 of Survey Settlement Office of Hazaribagh which is the additional evidence subject matter of consideration in the present case considering the substantial question of law. It is in this context, this Court has prima facie examined the aforesaid document sought to be adduced by way of additional evidence at the appellate stage which did not find reference in the First Appellate Court’s Judgement and the following discussions would reveal that the said document is of no consequence and it does not relate to the case at all. 31. It was the case of the appellants [defendant no. 2 and 4] that the property in the cadastral survey was never recorded in the name of Bibi Sajiwan Nisha but was recorded as G.M. Khas land of ex-landlord Radhika Ram Modi and others who made Raiyati Kayami settlement in the name of Gopi Mian, Jhuni Mian, Tiper Mian and Guli Mian by sada unregistered Hukumnama of the year 1935. 2 and 4] that the property in the cadastral survey was never recorded in the name of Bibi Sajiwan Nisha but was recorded as G.M. Khas land of ex-landlord Radhika Ram Modi and others who made Raiyati Kayami settlement in the name of Gopi Mian, Jhuni Mian, Tiper Mian and Guli Mian by sada unregistered Hukumnama of the year 1935. However, the defendants did not produce any evidence to substantiate such a claim and on the face of exhibit-B it was apparent that the Assistant Settlement Officer, Hazaribag had given endorsement over the certified copy of Khatiyan that under Section 87 of the CNT Act land of plot No. 2447 and 2452 of khata No. 98 was being recorded in khata No. 247 and further it was also held upon scrutiny of evidence produced at the stage of trial that land of khata No. 247 was recorded in the name of Bibi Sajiwan Nisha which was proved from exhibit-2 and it stood admitted by the defendants that in the record of rights the suit land of plot No. 2447 and 2452 were recorded in the name of mother of the plaintiff No. 1, namely , Bibi Sajiwan Nisha. 32. This Court finds that the learned first appellate court has not referred to the additional evidence i.e. certified copy of the order-sheet of Case No. 524/1967 of Survey Settlement Officer of Hazaribag while deciding the appeal and it appears that the appellate court had no difficulty in deciding the appeal without referring to the said order-sheet of Case No. 524/1967 of Survey Settlement Office of Hazaribag. The substantial question of law as framed by this Court reveals that the point which is to be decided is whether the first appellate court committed gross illegality by not considering records of Case No. 524/1967 brought on record before the first appellate court under Order XLI Rule 27 of CPC. 33. In the context of the importance/relevance of aforesaid additional evidence [certified copy of order-sheet in Case No. 524/1967 of Survey Settlement Office of Hazaribag] as per the appellants is assumes importance as the note in the record of right referred to Case No. 524/1967. It is their specific argument that though Case No. 524/1967 was mentioned in the record of rights but the Case No. 524/1967 has no connection with the rectification of the entries and also with the parties to the suit. It is their specific argument that though Case No. 524/1967 was mentioned in the record of rights but the Case No. 524/1967 has no connection with the rectification of the entries and also with the parties to the suit. This Court has gone through the additional evidence (certified copy of order-sheet in Case No. 524/1967 of Survey Settlement Office of Hazaribag) and finds that the order reveals that the applicant of Case No. 524/1967 of Survey Settlement Office of Hazaribag, namely, Bhutani Modi did not press the petition by stating that rectification was already made and on the face of the said additional evidence it is apparent that it is an order passed on a petition filed under Section 90 of the CNT Act and the order was passed by the Survey Settlement Officer, Hazaribag and the name of the parties of the said case has no connection with the parties of the present case. However, in the present case, the order of rectification as mentioned in the note in the record of rights was passed in a petition filed under section 87 of CNT Act [not under section 90 of the CNT Act] and the case number is Misc. Case No. 524 /1967 [not Case No. 524/1967] and the authority passing the order is Assistant Settlement officer [not Survey Settlement Officer, Hazaribag]. The khatiyan in which the entry has been made by referring to Case No. 524/1967 ex-facie reveals that the note was relating to Misc. Case No. 524/1967 filed under Section 87 of the CNT Act passed by the Assistant Settlement Officer, Hazaribag with respect to rectification of Plot No. 2447 and 2452 of Khata No. 247. 34. This Court finds that the additional evidence which was sought to be adduced was neither passed by the Assistant Settlement Officer, Hazaribag nor the same was an order under Section 87 of the CNT Act. Rather it was passed by the office of Survey Settlement Officer and was an order under Section 90 of the CNT Act. Therefore, on the face of the document which was sought to be adduced as additional evidence, it was not with respect to the proceedings pursuant to which the entry made through note in the record of rights in connection with khata no. 247 plot no. 2447 (area 10 decimal) and plot no. 2452 (area 10 decimal). Therefore, on the face of the document which was sought to be adduced as additional evidence, it was not with respect to the proceedings pursuant to which the entry made through note in the record of rights in connection with khata no. 247 plot no. 2447 (area 10 decimal) and plot no. 2452 (area 10 decimal). This court finds that the said additional evidence is not relating to the same proceedings as was mentioned in the note in the record of rights. 35. This Court also finds that the additional evidence was an order by which the petition was not pressed but as per the written statement filed by the defendant no. 3 and 4 it was their specific case that an ex-parte order of rectification was fraudulently obtained by the plaintiffs behind their back and pursuant to such ex-parte order the note was made in the record of rights. Therefore, on this aspect also, the content of the additional evidence [certified copy of order-sheet in Case No. 524/1967 of Survey Settlement Office of Hazaribag] does not match with the stand taken in the written statement. It is important to note that, the defendant no.2, who is the co-appellant, had not even filed the written statement and none of the defendants had deposed before the court although allegation of fraud was made in the written statement and this aspect of the matter has also been taken into consideration by the learned courts while deciding the case. 36. This Court is of the considered view that the said additional evidence had no relevance in the matter and the appellate court had observed that in case the appellate court need to refer to the additional evidence in order to pronounce the judgment they shall do so, but apparently the appellate court did not find any difficulty in pronouncing the judgment in absence of additional evidence. This Court also finds that the said additional evidence is of no use even for substantial cause as it is not at all relating to the same proceedings as was mentioned in the note in the record of rights which is sought to be challenged by relying upon the additional evidence. 37. This Court also finds that the said additional evidence is of no use even for substantial cause as it is not at all relating to the same proceedings as was mentioned in the note in the record of rights which is sought to be challenged by relying upon the additional evidence. 37. Accordingly, the substantial question of law as framed by this Court is answered against the appellants and in favour of the respondents and it is held that the first appellate court has not committed any illegality by not considering records of Case No. 524/1967 [that is, certified copy of order- sheet in Case No. 524/1967 of Survey Settlement Office of Hazaribag] brought on record before the first appellate court under Order XLI Rule 27 of CPC. 38. Consequently, this second appeal is hereby dismissed. 39. Pending interlocutory application, if any, is dismissed as not pressed.