Case: Union of India Vs. Ibrahim Uddin &amp; Another

A. Plaintiff/respondent no.1-Ibrahim Uddin filed Original Suit No.442 of 1995 in the Court of Civil Judge, Agra on 25.7.1995 seeking a decree for declaration that he was the owner of the suit property (Agriculture land measuring 25 bighas), making averments that the suit land originally had been with the Maratha Government (Scindia-Gwalior). The ancestors of the plaintiff having close association with the Maratha Government, were made a grant in respect of the suit land in the year 1800. Subsequently, the land was partitioned between the ancestors of the plaintiff in the year 1819. The plaintiff/respondent no.1 being the only heir (descendant) of Smt. Hasin Begum and Zafaruddin became the absolute owner of the land after the death of his mother Smt. Hasin Begum. The said land was never sold, alienated, transferred or gifted to any person either by the plaintiff or his ancestors at any point of time. The suit land was given on rent to the State authorities in Agra by executing a rent note for a sum of Rs.22/- per month. The Union of India claimed title over the suit land illegally and in an unauthorised manner on 22.2.1993 and afterwards, thus the cause of action arose to approach the courtB. The defendant no.1/appellant filed the written statement denying the averments and ownership of the plaintiff/respondent no.1 and averred that the land belonged to the Ministry of Defence, i.e., Union of India, a part of which has been leased out to several persons for agriculture work and their lease has been renewed from time to time. As they became unauthorised occupants, proceedings had been initiated in accordance with law and eviction order had been passed against the occupants/tenants.. In view of the pleadings, 8 issues were framed by the Trial Court and after appreciating the evidence on record, the trial Court came to the conclusion that Pedigree produced by the plaintiff alongwith the plaint was not successfully proved; the plaintiff could not prove any kind of grant by the Maratha Government to his ancestors/great-grandfathers in the year 1800. Plaintiff failed to prove the partition between his ancestors in 1819. The lease deed alleged to have been executed in favour of the Military Estate Officer under the Union of India, appellant/defendant No.1, was not successfully proved. In view of the above, the suit was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 20.1.1998.. Aggrieved, the plaintiff/respondent no.1 preferred the first appeal before the District Judge, Agra. During the pendency of the said appeal, he preferred an application under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 (hereinafter called CPC) on 6.4.1998 for adducing additional evidence, i.e., Will executed by his maternal grandfather dated 1.3.1929 in his favour bequeathing the suit property. The said application was allowed by the first appellate Court vide order dated 28.4.1999. The First Appeal itself stood allowed by the first appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated 15.10.1999 wherein the first appellate Court came to the conclusion that Maratha Government had made the gift of land in favour of plaintiffs fore-fathers which was subsequently partitioned. The registered partition deed stood duly proved and it was the proof of the title of the plaintiff/respondent no.1. The plaintiff/respondent no.1 made an application for inspection of the record before the officers of the appellant/defendant no.1 but perusal of the record was not permitted. The appellant/defendant no.1 did not produce any document to show its title and failed to produce the original record, thus, adverse inference was drawn against it in view of the provisions of Section 114 clause(g) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (hereinafter called the Evidence Act). The Will, taken on record as an additional evidence at appellate stage stood proved and thus, contents thereof automatically stood provedE. Aggrieved, the appellant preferred Second Appeal before the High Court which has been dismissed vide impugned judgment and decree. Hence, this appeal

Court's reasoning:
37. To sum up on the issue, it may be held that application for taking additional evidence on record at a belated stage cannot be filed as a matter of right. The court can consider such an application with circumspection, provided it is covered under either of the prerequisite condition incorporated in the statutory provisions itself. The discretion is to be exercised by the court judicially taking into consideration the relevance of the document in respect of the issues involved in the case and the circumstances under which such an evidence could not be led in the court below and as to whether the applicant had prosecuted his case before the court below diligently and as to whether such evidence is required to pronounce the judgment by the appellate court. In case the court comes to the conclusion that the application filed comes within the four corners of the statutory provisions itself, the evidence may be taken on record, however, the court must record reasons as on what basis such an application has been allowed. However, the application should not be moved at a belated stageconsidered opinion that the appellate courts dealt with the case in an unwarranted manner giving a complete go-by to the procedure prescribed by law68. The appellate courts examined the title of government instead of the plaintiff/respondent no.1. Such a course was not warranted. The title of government cannot be disputed. In any event possession of government for decades is not disputed. The plaintiff shifted the case from time to time but failed to prove his title