2026 INSC 211 CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 5168-5169 OF 2011 Page 1 of 22

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 5168-5169 OF 2011

GOBIND SINGH AND ORS. …APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. …RESPONDENT(S)

J U D G M E N T

VIKRAM NATH, J.

1. The present appeals, by special leave, are

directed against the judgment dated 12

th August,

2009, and the subsequent judgment rendered in

review on 15

th March, 2011, by the High Court of

Madhya Pradesh, Bench Gwalior,

1 in First Appeal No.

80 of 1996 and Review Petition No. 300 of 2009,

respectively whereby the appeal filed by the Union of

India was allowed and the review of the appellant was

dismissed. By the aforesaid orders, the judgment and

decree dated 25 March 1996 passed by the Court of

the Vth Additional District Judge, Gwalior

2, in Civil

1

Hereinafter, referred to as “High Court”.

2

Hereinafter, referred to as “Civil Court”.

CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 5168-5169 OF 2011 Page 2 of 22

Suit No. 5-A of 1990 was set aside and the suit was

dismissed.

2. The appellants

3 herein instituted in Civil Suit

No. 5-A of 1990, seeking a declaration of title and a

decree of permanent injunction against the

defendants

4. Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 were arrayed as

defendant Nos. 1 to 4, respectively, in the said suit.

FACTS OF THE CASE: -

3. The facts, insofar as they are necessary for the

disposal of the present appeals, are set out

hereinafter: -

3.1. The case of the appellant-plaintiffs is that the

land bearing Survey No. 2029, admeasuring 8 Bighas

and 10 Biswas, situated in Patwari Halqa No. 51,

opposite Baaj Cinema Hall, Murar, Pargana and

District Gwalior, is owned and possessed by them. It

is alleged that on 4

th December, 1989 officers of the

respondent-defendants entered upon the suit

property with the intent to remove the wire fencing

erected thereon, the two shops constructed by the

plaintiffs, as well as the standing crops on the said

land.

3

Hereinafter, referred to as “appellant-plaintiffs”.

4

Hereinafter, referred to as “respondent-defendants”.

CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 5168-5169 OF 2011 Page 3 of 22

3.2. In this backdrop, the appellant -plaintiffs

instituted a civil suit, being Civil Suit No. 55A of

1989

5, on 5

th December, 1989 before the Civil Court,

seeking a declaration of title and a decree of

permanent injunction restraining the defendants

from interfering with the suit property. The appellant-

plaintiffs asserted that the suit property constituted

their ancestral property and that their forefathers

had been in continuous ownership and possession

thereof for the preceding fifty years.

3.3. The Trial Court, vide judgment dated 26

th

March, 1996, decreed the suit, holding that the title,

ownership and possession of the suit property vested

in the appellant-plaintiffs, and that the respondent-

defendants had failed to establish any title thereto.

3.4. Aggrieved by the said decree, the respondent-

defendants preferred first appeal before the High

Court. During the pendency of the appeal, the

appellant-plaintiffs filed an application under Order

XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

6,

seeking to place on record certified copies of the

General Land Register maintained by the

respondent-defendants. It was the case of the

5

Re-numbered later as “5-A of 1990”.

6

For short, “CPC”.

CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 5168-5169 OF 2011 Page 4 of 22

appellant-plaintiffs that the said documents would

demonstrate that the suit property stood recorded as

private land.

3.5. The High Court, vide judgment dated 12

th

August, 2009, allowed the appeal preferred by the

respondent-defendants, holding that the appellant-

plaintiffs had claimed perfection of title on the basis

of a decree passed in an earlier suit to which the

respondent-defendants were not parties.

3.6. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant -plaintiffs

instituted a review petition before the High Court

primarily on the ground that the application for

additional evidence had not been decided. The High

Court, however, by judgment dated 15

th March, 2011,

dismissed not only the review petition but also the

application for additional evidence and affirmed the

judgment rendered in the first appeal, while imposing

costs of Rs.2,000/-.

4. It is in these circumstances that the appellant-

plaintiffs have approached this Court.

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PARTIES: -

5. Shri Anupam Lal Dass, learned Senior Counsel

appearing on behalf of the appellants, assailed the

CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 5168-5169 OF 2011 Page 5 of 22

judgments passed by the High Court and advanced

the following submissions: -

5.1. That the High Court acted contrary to law in

proceeding to decide the appeal on merits without

first adjudicating upon the application filed by the

appellant-plaintiffs under Order XLI Rule 27 of CPC

for leading additional evidence.

5.2. That the predecessors -in-interest of the

appellant-plaintiffs had instituted a civil suit against

the State seeking a declaration of title, which was

decreed by a court of competent jurisdiction, and that

the said judgment has since attained finality.

5.3. That the material on record clearly establishes

that the appellant-plaintiffs have remained in

continuous and uninterrupted possession of the suit

property since the time of their forefathers, and have,

therefore, perfected title thereto by way of adverse

possession.

5.4. On these premises, the appellant -plaintiffs

prayed that the present appeals be allowed and that

the impugned judgments of the High Court be set

aside.

6. Per contra, Shri V. Chitambresh, learned Senior

Counsel appearing for the respondents, strongly

CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 5168-5169 OF 2011 Page 6 of 22

opposed the submissions advanced on behalf of the

appellants and advanced the following contentions: -

6.1. That the land comprising Morar Cantonment,

within which the suit property is situated, vested in

the Union Government in the year 1953 upon

transfer of ownership from the State Government.

6.2. That the ex parte decree passed in the earlier

civil suit against the State of MP instituted by the

predecessors-in-interest of the appellant-plaintiffs

would not be binding on the Union , having been

rendered in the absence of the respondent -

defendants, who were neither impleaded nor afforded

an opportunity of being heard in the said suit.

6.3. The application for additional evidence was

misplaced and without any merit. It did not fall

within the four corners of the principles and

parameters laid down in the Order XLI Rule 27 CPC.

The same has been rightly rejected by the High Court

while deciding the review petition.

6.4. On these grounds, the respondent-defendants

vehemently urged that the present appeals be

dismissed and the impugned judgments of the High

Court be affirmed.

CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 5168-5169 OF 2011 Page 7 of 22

ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION: -

7. We have heard the learned senior counsel

appearing for the parties and have carefully perused

the material placed on record.

8. The limited question that arises for

consideration is whether the High Court’s omission

to expressly adjudicate the application filed under

Order XLI Rule 27 of CPC while deciding the first

appeal has resulted in any manifest injustice or

miscarriage of justice so as to warrant interference by

this Court.

9. In order to properly appreciate the controversy

involved, it would be apposite to advert to the

reasoning adopted by the courts below. While

decreeing the suit instituted by the appellant -

plaintiffs, the Trial Court recorded the following

findings: -

i. That it was an undisputed fact that, in respect

of the suit property, a decree dated 9

th July,

1984, had already been passed by a competent

court in favour of the predecessors-in-interest

of the appellant-plaintiffs.

ii. That upon an appraisal of the material placed

on record, the appellant-plaintiffs were found to

CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 5168-5169 OF 2011 Page 8 of 22

be in possession and occupation of the suit

property in the capacity of owners thereof.

iii. That the respondent-defendants failed to place

on record any documentary evidence to

substantiate their claim of ownership or

possession over the suit property.

iv. That the objection raised by the respondent-

defendants regarding the alleged failure of the

plaintiffs to disclose the source of their title was

rejected, as the documentary evidence on record

sufficiently established that the plaintiffs held

ownership over the suit property and had been

in continuous possession and occupation

thereof for a considerable length of time thus

consequently, the plaintiffs’ ownership stood

proved.

10. When the said decree was assailed by the

respondent-defendants before the High Court by way

of an appeal, the High Court, while allowing the

appeal, recorded the following findings: -

i. That the earlier suit instituted by the

predecessors-in-interest of the plaintiffs against

the State of Madhya Pradesh was decreed ex

parte by the Civil Court, without the

respondent–Union of India having been

CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 5168-5169 OF 2011 Page 9 of 22

impleaded as a party to the said proceedings. It

was not binding on the Union of India.

ii. That from the pleadings and evidence adduced

in the present suit, it emerged that the plaintiffs’

claim over the suit property was founded on

adverse possession, predicated on their alleged

possession of the land since the time of their

forefathers. Their could not be any perfection of

rights by adverse possession against the

State/Union howsoever long may be the

possession.

iii. That the plaintiffs failed to discharge the burden

of proving ownership over the suit property,

having neither produced any documentary

evidence nor examined any witness to establish

the point of time at which their forefathers came

into possession of the land and on what basis.

iv. That the plaintiffs had sought to claim

perfection of title on the basis of adverse

possession in the earlier suit filed by their

predecessor and, by doing so, procured a decree

of declaration without impleading the

respondent-defendants. Consequently, the said

decree was held to be not binding on the

respondent-defendants, and the plaintiffs were

CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 5168-5169 OF 2011 Page 10 of 22

found not to have acquired ownership in the

eyes of law.

v. While deciding the review petition the

application for additional evidence was also

dismissed as being without any merit.

11. In our considered view, the High Court has

committed no error in rendering the impugned

judgments and, for the reasons that follow

hereinafter, we are not persuaded to interfere and

are, accordingly, inclined to dismiss the present

appeals.

11.1. It is true that the High Court, while delivering

the judgment dated 12

th August, 2009, did not advert

to the application filed by the appellant-plaintiffs

under Order XLI Rule 27 of CPC. However, when the

said judgment was assailed by way of a review

petition, the appellant -plaintiffs specifically

contended that the judgment could not be sustained

on account of the High Court’s failure to consider the

application seeking to adduce additional evidence.

The High Court, by its subsequent judgment dated

15

th March, 2009, dismissed the review petition and,

in the process, also rejected the application filed

under Order XLI Rule 27 of CPC as being without any

merit.

CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 5168-5169 OF 2011 Page 11 of 22

11.2. In order to properly appreciate the controversy

involved, it is necessary to first advert to the statutory

provision applicable to the case at hand. Order XLI

Rule 27 of CPC reads as follows: -

“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) . . .

(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 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.”

(emphasis supplied)

11.3. Rule 27, being couched in negative terms,

makes it abundantly clear that parties to an appeal

are not entitled to adduce additional evidence,

CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 5168-5169 OF 2011 Page 12 of 22

whether oral or documentary, save and except in the

circumstances expressly enumerated therein. The

provision contemplates only three eventualities in

which additional evidence may be permitted: first,

where the court which passed the decree has refused

to admit evidence which ought to have been

admitted; second, where the party seeking to adduce

such evidence establishes that, notwithstanding the

exercise of due diligence, the evidence was not within

its knowledge or could not have been produced at the

time when the decree under appeal was passed; and

third, where the appellate court itself requires any

document to be produced or any witness to be

examined in order to enable it to pronounce judgment

or for any other substantial cause.

11.4. Accordingly, it is only upon satisfaction of any

of the aforesaid three contingencies that an

application under Order XLI Rule 27 of CPC can be

entertained. Sub-rule (2) of the said provision further

mandates that where the appellate court forms an

opinion that additional evidence is required to be

admitted, it must record the reasons for such

admission. While elucidating the scope and object of

Order XLI Rule 27 of CPC, this Court, in Union of

CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 5168-5169 OF 2011 Page 13 of 22

India v. Ibrahim Uddin,

7 undertook an exhaustive

analysis of the provision. The relevant extract is

reproduced hereinafter: -

“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 exce ptional

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 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.

. . .

38. Under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC, the

appellate court has the power to allow

a document to be produced and a

witness to be examined. But the

requirement of the said court must be

limited to those cases where it found

it necessary to obtain such evidence

for enabling it to pronounce

judgment. This provision does not

entitle the appellate court to let in

fresh evidence at the appellate stage

where even without such evidence it

7

(2012) 8 SCC 148

CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 5168-5169 OF 2011 Page 14 of 22

can pronounce judgment in a case. It

does not entitle the appellate court to

let in fresh evidence only for the

purpose of pronouncing judgment in

a particular way. In other words, it is

only for removing a lacuna in the

evidence that the appellate court is

empowered to admit additional

evidence.

. . .

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.”

(emphasis supplied)

Thus, a holistic reading of the aforesaid decision

makes it clear that the appellate court’s inquiry,

while considering an application for leading

additional evidence, is confined to examining whether

such evidence is necessary to remove a lacuna in the

case. More importantly, the appellate court may

permit additional evidence only upon being satisfied

that the conditions expressly stipulated under Order

XLI Rule 27 of CPC are fulfilled. The parties do not

possess any vested or automatic right to seek

admission of additional evidence at the appellate

stage. Consequently, the provision has no application

CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 5168-5169 OF 2011 Page 15 of 22

where the appellate court is in a position to render a

satisfactory and reasoned judgment on the basis of

the evidence already available on record.

11.5. In State of Karnataka v. K.C. Subramanya ,

8

the appellants therein had moved an application

before the appellate court under Order XLI Rule 27 of

CPC seeking leave to produce a map of the area to

establish that the disputed land constituted a public

road. This Court, while affirming the High Court’s

decision to reject the said application, held as follows:

-

“4. . . .

On perusal of this provision, it is

unambiguously clear that the party

can seek liberty to produce additional

evidence at the appellate stage, but

the same can be permitted only if the

evidence sought to be produced could

not be produced at the stage of trial

in spite of exercise of due diligence

and that the evidence could not be

produced as it was not within his

knowledge and hence was fit to be

produced by the appellant before the

appellate forum.

5. It is thus clear that there are

conditions precedent before allowing

a party to adduce additional evidence

at the stage of appeal, which

specifically incorporates conditions

to the effect that the party in spite of

due diligence could not produce the

evidence and the same cannot be

8

(2014) 13 SCC 468

CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 5168-5169 OF 2011 Page 16 of 22

allowed to be done at his leisure or

sweet will.”

(emphasis supplied)

This Court thus categorically held that unless

the requirements stipulated under Order XLI Rule 27

of CPC are strictly satisfied, a party cannot be

permitted to adduce additional evidence at the

appellate stage. Such permission cannot be granted

as a matter of course, nor can additional evidence be

introduced at the whim or convenience of a litigating

party.

11.6. Where the appellate court permits additional

evidence to be adduced, Order XLI Rule 27(2) of CPC

casts a mandatory obligation upon the court to

record the reasons for such admission. In Ibrahim

Uddin (supra), this Court elucidated the rationale

underlying the requirement of recording reasons in

the following terms: -

“42. Whenever the appellate court

admits additional evidence it should

record its reasons for doing so (sub-rule

(2)). It is a salutary provision which

operates as a check against a too easy

reception of evidence at a late stage of

litigation and the statement of reasons

may inspire confidence and disarm

objection. Another reason of this

requirement is that, where a further

appeal lies from the decision, the record

CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 5168-5169 OF 2011 Page 17 of 22

of reasons will be useful and necessary

for the court of further appeal to see, if

the discretion under this Rule has been

properly exercised by the court

below. The omission to record the

reasons must, therefore, be treated as a

serious defect. But this provision is only

directory and not mandatory, if the

reception of such evidence can be

justified under the Rule.”

11.7. The procedural framework under Order XLI of

CPC makes it abundantly clear that an appeal is

ordinarily to be decided on the evidence adduced

before the Trial Court. The Appellate Court is not

expected to embark upon a fresh fact-finding exercise

or permit production of additional evidence as a

matter of routine. Where the Appellate Court is

satisfied that the material already available on record

is sufficient to enable it to pronounce judgment, it is

well within its jurisdiction to confine its consideration

to the evidence forming part of the record of the

courts below.

11.8. In the present case, the High Court, upon an

examination of the evidence adduced by the parties,

proceeded to analyse the decree passed in the earlier

civil suit instituted by the predecessors-in-interest of

the appellant-plaintiffs. The High Court observed

that the said decree was not binding upon the

CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 5168-5169 OF 2011 Page 18 of 22

respondent-defendants, as they had not been

impleaded as parties to those proceedings.

Consequently, no legal sanctity could be attached to

any subsequent entries made in the revenue records

on the strength of the said decree, including the

mutation of the plaintiffs’ names therein.

11.9. Once the said finding recorded by the Trial

Court was set aside, whereby the entire claim of

ownership of the appellant-plaintiffs rested upon the

earlier decree and the consequent entries in the

revenue records, the onus squarely shifted upon the

appellant-plaintiffs to independently establish their

title to the suit property.

11.10. The appellant-plaintiffs were, from the

outset, fully aware that the respondent-defendants

had not been impleaded as parties in the earlier civil

suit instituted by their predecessors. Having founded

their claim upon a decree which was non-est insofar

as the respondent-defendants were concerned, it was

impermissible for the appellant-plaintiffs to seek to

introduce additional evidence at the appellate stage

to cure the inherent defects in their case. The present

suit being one for declaration o f title, it was

incumbent upon the appellant -plaintiffs, if they

indeed possessed a valid title, to adduce their best

CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 5168-5169 OF 2011 Page 19 of 22

and complete evidence at the stage of trial before the

court of first instance, where such evidence could

have been produced as a matter of right.

11.11. Further, even at the stage of the earlier

suit instituted by the predecessors-in-interest of the

appellant-plaintiffs, their consistent case was one of

lawful title to the suit property. No plea of adverse

possession was ever raised against the respondent-

defendants. The appellants wish to rely upon the

additional evidence, namely, the entries in the

General Land Register maintained by the

respondent-defendants to show that the suit property

is recorded as private land. Such an endeavour, at

the appellate stage and in the absence of

foundational pleadings, is wholly impermissible in

law. Mere recording of the land in suit as private land

in the GLR does not in any manner benefit the

appellants claim of ownership.

11.12. Once the appellant-plaintiffs asserted that

they derived valid title to the suit property through

their forefathers, the burden lay squarely upon them

to substantiate such claim by producing cogent title

deeds in support thereof. However, no such

documentary evidence was forthcoming.

CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 5168-5169 OF 2011 Page 20 of 22

11.13. On the other hand, the consistent stand of

the respondent-defendants from the inception has

been that the appellant -plaintiffs are rank

trespassers and encroachers upon the suit property.

The respondent-defendants have specifically denied

the assertion that the appellant-plaintiffs or their

predecessors had been in enjoyment of the suit

property for the preceding fifty years prior to the

institution of the suit.

11.14. Further, the respondent-defendants have

traced their title to the decision of the Union of India

dated 17

th July, 1953, pursuant to which the suit

land, along with other immovable properties, vested

in the respondent-defendants in terms of title,

ownership and possession. This assertion stands

fortified by the Gazette Notification dated 4

th

November, 1954, issued by the erstwhile State of

Madhya Bharat, which also recognises that the suit

land and other properties with title, ownership and

possession vested in the respondent-defendants.

11.15. The above discussion will also reflect that

even if the additional evidence in the form of GLR is

accepted, the same will have no impact on the

findings returned by the High Court. The application

CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 5168-5169 OF 2011 Page 21 of 22

for additional evidence was thus rightly rejected by

the High Court.

11.16. Before parting, we deem it appropriate to

record our disapproval of the unscrupulous litigants

such as appellant-plaintiffs and their predecessors

and the manner in which they have conducted

themselves. The material on record indicates that the

earlier suit instituted by the predecessors-in-interest

of the appellant-plaintiffs culminated in a decree

passed without impleading the respondent -

defendants, who were the lawful owners of the suit

property. The attempt to secure a decree behind the

back of the true owner is a circumstance that cannot

be lightly brushed aside. It is also not without

significance that appellant-plaintiff No. 1, Govind

Singh, was employed in the office of the

Commissioner at the relevant time. The proximity of

events, namely, the passing of an ex-parte decree

followed by the expeditious mutation of revenue

entries in favour of the appellant-plaintiffs, casts a

shadow over the bona fides of the proceedings.

11.17. In such a backdrop, when the appellant-

plaintiffs themselves asserted title on the basis of

long and continuous possession through their

predecessors, the subsequent attempt to introduce

CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 5168-5169 OF 2011 Page 22 of 22

additional evidence at the appellate stage assumes

little legal significance. Once the trial had concluded

and the decree was under challenge in appeal, the

appellants could not be permitted to fill the gaps in

their case by seeking to adduce further material to

fortify a claim that was fundamentally flawed.

12. For the foregoing reasons, we find no infirmity

in the judgments rendered by the High Court.

13. Accordingly, the judgments dated 12

th August,

2009, in First Appeal No. 80 of 1996 and 15

th March,

2011, in Review Petition No. 300 of 2009 passed by

the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Gwalior are

hereby affirmed.

14. Consequently, the present appeals stand

dismissed.

15. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand

disposed of.

………………………………………..J.

[VIKRAM NATH]

………………………………………..J.

[SANDEEP MEHTA]

NEW DELHI

MARCH 09, 2026