Case Note & Summary
The dispute concerned the title and possession of land claimed by Dr. Punjabrao Krishi Vidyapeeth against the appellants. The Trial Court decreed the suit for possession in favor of the respondent, and the First Appellate Court confirmed this decree on 19/01/2005. The appellants filed second appeals before the High Court, which were initially dismissed on 06/03/2007 for lack of substantial question of law. The Supreme Court, in Civil Appeal No. 8466/2009, set aside the High Court's order and remanded the matter for fresh decision on the issue of whether the respondent had rights or title over the suit land. After remand, on 09/12/2020, the High Court framed the substantial question of law: “Whether Respondent – Dr. Punjabrao Krishi Vidyapeeth is the owner of the land and, therefore, it can file a suit for possession.” During the proceedings, the respondent filed Civil Application (S) No. 899/2022 under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking to place on record original Government Notifications dated 20/05/1968 and 13/10/1969. The respondent contended that these notifications, issued under the Punjabrao Agricultural University (Krishi Vidyapeeth) Act, 1968, proved that the suit land was transferred to the respondent on 01/06/1968 under Section 7 of the Act. The appellants opposed the application, arguing that the documents were within the respondent's knowledge but not produced earlier. They relied on S. Rajagopal v. C.M. Armugam (AIR 1969 SC 101) and Union of India v. Ibrahim Uddin ((2012) 8 SCC 148) to contend that additional evidence should not be permitted at the appellate stage. The respondent relied on Manohar Ramchandra Deshpande v. Pralhadrao Deshpande (2019(5) ALL MR 337) and Sanjay Kumar Singh v. State of Jharkhand (AIR 2022 SC 1372) to assert that the appellate court must enquire whether the documents are necessary for pronouncing judgment. The Court distinguished the appellant's cited cases, noting that official gazette notifications are self-authenticating and do not require further oral evidence. Observing that the Supreme Court had specifically directed determination of the respondent's title, the Court held that the original notifications were essential for proper adjudication of the substantial question of law. Accordingly, the Court allowed the application and permitted the respondent to place the original notifications on record. The main appeals were to be decided thereafter on the framed substantial question of law.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure – Additional Evidence in Appeal – Order XLI Rule 27(1)(b) CPC – Condition of Necessity for Pronouncing Judgment – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Order XLI Rule 27 – Court of Appeal must examine whether the documents sought to be produced are required for pronouncing judgment. In this matter, original Gazette Notifications dated 20/05/1968 and 13/10/1969 under the Punjabrao Agricultural University (Krishi Vidyapeeth) Act, 1968 were necessary to determine ownership rights. Held that application deserves to be allowed as the documents go to the root of the matter and are essential for decision on the substantial question of law framed. (Paras 8-11)
Issue of Consideration
Whether Respondent’s application under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC for producing original Government Notifications should be allowed for proper adjudication of the ownership dispute.
Final Decision
Civil Application (S) No. 899/2022 allowed. Respondent permitted to place on record original Government Notifications dated 20/05/1968 and 13/10/1969 under Order XLI Rule 27(1)(b) CPC. The main appeal to be decided thereafter on the substantial question of law.
Law Points
- Legal points not extracted
- Additional evidence under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC may be allowed if documents are necessary for pronouncing judgment
- Official Gazette Notifications do not require further oral evidence as they are self-proving
- Appellate Court must conduct enquiry under Order XLI Rule 27(1)(b) CPC
