THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO S.A.M.P.No.3006 of 2008 and SECOND APPEAL No.612 of 1994 COMMON ORDER: This appeal under Section 100 C.P.C. is filed at the instance of the unsuccessful plaintiff aggrieved by the judgment and decree, dated 25.04.1994, passed in A.S.No.16 of 1991 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Gadwal to the extent of partial refusal of the decree for partition in respect of ‘A’ schedule property, which consists of agricultural lands. Through the said judgment under appeal, the judgment and decree, dated 09.09.1991, in O.S.No.51 of 1987 on the file of the District Munsif, Atmakur, Mahaboobnagar was confirmed. Heard both sides. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the suit was filed by the appellant against respondent Nos.1 and 2 and others for partition of the agricultural lands as shown in plaint ‘A’ schedule and a residential house in plaint ‘B’ schedule. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 contested the suit denying the right of the appellant to claim any right in regard to the properties in ‘A’ and ‘B’ schedules. Subsequently, both the parties went into trial and let in their evidence respectively. The appellant examined P.Ws.1 to 3 and marked Exs.A1 to A4, whereas, respondent Nos.1 and 2 examined D.Ws.1 to 4 and marked Exs.B1 to B5. The trial Court, after considering the same, decreed the suit, granting relief of partition in favour of the appellant in respect of plaint ‘B’ schedule property only. However, as far as plaint ‘A’ schedule property is concerned, the trial Court, disbelieving the version of the appellant as to the said property as liable for partition, while accepting the claim of respondent Nos.1 and 2 under Exs.B1 and B2 agreements of sale, decreed the suit in respect of ‘B’ schedule property and dismissed for schedule ‘A’. The lower appellate Court, after re-appreciating the entire material on record, did not find fault with the findings in the judgment and decree of the trial Court in regard to ‘A’ schedule property and dismissed the appeal. Hence, this second appeal. In this second appeal, the main submission made on behalf of the appellant is to the effect that except barely placing reliance on the agreements in Exs.B1 and B2, which are neither registered nor stamped properly, there is no other material in support of the claim of respondents 1 and 2 as regards title or possession, whereas the entire revenue records, including khasra pahanies, pahanies and pattadar pass books, which are now sought to be filed, show that they were issued in favour of himself and his brothers and therefore the claim of the respondents is wholly unsustainable. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance upon a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Shikharchand Vs. D.J.P.Karini Sakha[1], wherein it has been held that the Khasra is a record of right according to Section 45 (2) of the Central Provinces Land Revenue Act, 1917 and therefore, the entries in a record of rights shall be presumed to be correct unless the contrary is shown. Further, the appellant filed S.A.M.P.No.3006 of 2008 purportedly under Order 41 Rule 27 of C.P.C. seeking permission of this Court to receive additional documents consisting of pahani, pattadar pass book, ownership certificate and Land Holding Certificate and sought to mark the same as additional evidence Exs.A5 to A8. These submissions are sought to be repelled on behalf of the respondents herein on the ground that there is absolutely no basis for the claim made by the appellant to sustain his claim in respect of the agricultural lands and even otherwise, the appellant is not entitled to any indulgence for allowing him to produce further evidence. Having perused the material on record, though this Court in its exercise under Section 100 C.P.C. would not be in a position to re-appreciate the evidence and material on record, except the grounds touching upon only the substantial question of law, however, the fact remains that both the parties are none other than brothers and as contended on behalf of the appellant, the genuiness of the revenue records, which are sought to be filed as additional evidence, cannot be doubted. In view of the same, admittedly, except mere bare agreement of sale, no other document has been filed by the respondents to support their exclusive nature of right, title and interest over the plaint ‘A’ schedule property. Neither any explanation is forthcoming for lack of any material. Further, there is no serious valid opposition for receiving the additional evidence, which are all public documents. Of course, any such receipt will be subject to proof and relevancy and with a right of rebuttal for the defendants. In the circumstances, it is felt desirable that the matter requires fresh consideration by appreciating the additional material. Hence, S.A.M.P.No.3006 of 2008 is allowed, since these documents are relevant and would have bearing on the real controversy and consequently, the second appeal is allowed and the judgment and decree under appeal in A.S.No.16 of 2992, dated 25.04.1994, is set aside, and the matter is remanded to the lower appellate Court. It shall receive the additional material and dispose of the main appeal on its own merits in accordance with law after giving opportunity to both the parties. No costs. __________________ (B.PRAKASH RAO,J) Dated: 22.07.2010 kdl [1] AIR 1974 Supreme Court 1178