As per case facts, appellants claimed ownership and possession of land, arguing it was ancestral. A civil court initially decreed in their favor, but the High Court allowed the appeal ... by the respondents (Union of India), setting aside the decree. The High Court also dismissed the appellants' review petition and an application for additional evidence. The question arose whether the High Court's omission to adjudicate an application for additional evidence during the first appeal resulted in injustice, and whether such evidence was permissible to cure defects in the appellant's claim. Finally, the Supreme Court affirmed the High Court's judgment, stating that additional evidence is not automatically allowed at the appellate stage and is only for removing lacunas, not filling gaps in a fundamentally flawed case. The earlier ex parte decree was not binding on the Union of India, and the appellants failed to prove their title independently, making the additional evidence irrelevant to the High Court's findings.