Order 41 Rule 27 CPC| Additional Evidence Cannot Be Allowed To Fill Lacunae In Appeal: Supreme Court

The Court was hearing civil appeals challenging a Madhya Pradesh High Court judgment that had set aside a trial court decree declaring their title over certain land in Gwalior. The Bench criticised the conduct of the plaintiffs and their predecessors, and observed that the earlier decree had been obtained without impleading the Union of India as a party, which appeared to be the true owner of the land, raising doubts about the fairness and bona fides of the proceedings.

Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta observed, “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 of title, it was incumbent upon the appellant-plaintiffs, if they indeed possessed a valid title, to adduce their best 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”.

“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”.

Kunal Verma, AOR appeared for the appellant and K M Nataraj, A.S.G., Senior Advocate V Chitambresh appeared for the respondent.

In the matter, the dispute was over a piece of land located in Morar, Gwalior, measuring about 8 bighas and 10 biswas, situated opposite Baaj Cinema Hall. The plaintiffs, led by Govind Singh, claimed that the land belonged to their family and had been in their possession for more than fifty years. According to them, it was ancestral property, and they had even fenced the land, built two shops on it, and cultivated crops there.

It was on 04-12-1989, when the government officials allegedly entered the land and attempted to remove the fencing, demolish the structures, and disturb the crops. Feeling threatened, the plaintiffs rushed to the civil court the very next day and filed a suit seeking declaration of title and a permanent injunction to restrain the authorities from interfering with their possession.

The Trial Court in 1996 through a judgment favoured the plaintiffs, as it accepted their claim that they were in possession of the land and held that the government had failed to prove ownership. The court therefore declared the plaintiffs as the rightful owners and granted the injunction.

However, the Union of India challenged this decision in the High Court, arguing that the land formed part of the Morar Cantonment, which had vested in the Union Government in 1953, and that the plaintiffs had no legal title. It further pointed out that the plaintiffs were relying heavily on an earlier decree obtained against the State of Madhya Pradesh, but the Union of India had not been made a party in that earlier case, meaning that decree could not bind the Union.

So the question which the Court had to adjudicate upon was 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 the Court.

Therefore, now the Court explained that additional evidence may be permitted only where the trial court wrongly refused to admit evidence, where the evidence could not have been produced earlier despite due diligence, or where the appellate court itself requires such evidence to pronounce judgment. If the appellate court can decide the case based on the existing record, allowing additional evidence would be impermissible.

The bench further observed that in a suit seeking declaration of title, the burden squarely lies on the plaintiffs to prove their ownership through cogent evidence. The appellants had failed to produce any documentary title during the trial and later sought to rely on additional records at the appellate stage to cure the deficiencies in their case.

The Court disapproving such an approach held that litigants cannot be permitted to introduce new material in appeal to remedy defects in their original case once the trial has concluded.

Accordingly, finding no error in the impugned judgment, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeals and affirmed the High Court’s judgment which had set aside the trial court decree.

Cause Title: Gobind Singh & Ors v. Union of India & Ors [Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 211]

Appearances:

Appellant: Kunal Verma, AOR.

Respondent: K M Nataraj, A.S.G., V Chitambresh, Sr. Adv., Mukesh Kumar Maroria, AOR, Rajan Kumar Chourasia, Swati Ghildiyal, Anuj Srinivas Udupa, Bhuvan Kapoor, Chitransh Sharma, Sharath Nambiar, Vinayak Sharma, Vatsal Joshi, Yogya Rajpurohit, Indira Bhakar, Satvika Thakur, S. Subramaniam, Ritika Ranjan, Rekha Pandey, AOR, Harmeet Singh Ruprah, AOR, Kanishk Sharma, Karan Singh, Advocates.

Click here to read/download the Judgment