1. The plaintiff is before this Court impugning the judgment and decree dated 06.09.2017 passed in R.A.No.46/2016 on the file of the learned I Additional Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Chickballapur (hereinafter referred to as ‘First Appellate Court’ for brevity), allowing the appeal preferred by the defendants and setting aside the impugned judgment and decreed dated 19.12.2015 in O.S.No.459/2013 on the file of the learned II Additional Civil Judge & JMFC, Chickballapur (hereinafter referred to as ‘the trial Court’ for brevity) and also dismissing the suit.

2. For the sake of convenience, parties are referred to as per their status and rank before the Trial Court.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff filed suit O.S.No.459/2013 for permanent injunction against the defendants with respect to the suit schedule property to restrain them from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment by the plaintiff. The schedule appended to the plaint describes the Agricultural Land bearing Sy.No.24/8P1 (old Sy.No.24, 8th block) totally measuring 4.30 acres situated at Anemadagu Village, Mandikal Hobli, Chickballapur Taluk with the boundaries mentioned therein. It is contended that the schedule property was granted in favour of the plaintiff vide order dated 23.04.1998 by the Government and since then, she is in possession and enjoyment of the same, by paying the land revenue. Even though the defendants are not having any right, title or interest over the schedule property, they are trying to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the schedule land by cutting the trees standing therein. Therefore, the plaintiff field the suit against the defendants seeking permanent injunction.

4. Defendant Nos.1 and 2 have appeared before the trial Court and filed their written statement denying the contentions taken by the plaintiff. It is contended that the husband of defendant No.2 and father of defendant No.1 by name Gopanna was cultivating 03 acres of land in Sy.No.24, situated in Anemadagu Village, Mandikal Hobli, Chickballapur Taluk and filed an application for regularizing the unauthorized cultivation. The said application was rejected by the land grant committee. An appeal was preferred before the Assistant Commissioner, Chickballapur and the same is pending consideration. The defendants contended that 03 acres of land in their possession is bounded as stated in the written statement and therefore, the plaintiff cannot seek permanent injunction against them.

5. On the basis of these pleadings, the Trial Court framed the following issues as under:

"1. Whether the plaintiff proves that she is in lawful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property as on the date of the suit

2. Whether the plaintiff proves the alleged interference by the defendant

3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction as sought for

4. What order or Decree"

6. The plaintiff examined PW.1 and got marked Exs.P1 to P10 in support of her contention. Defendant No.1 examined himself as DW.1 and DW.2. Got marked Exs.D1 to D5 in support of their defence. The trial Court after taking into consideration all these materials on record, answered issue Nos.1 to 3 in the affirmative and decreed the suit of the plaintiff by restraining the defendants and their men from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the schedule property.

7. Being aggrieved by the same, the defendants have preferred R.A.No.46/2016. The First Appellate Court on re-appreciation of the materials on record, found that the suit of the plaintiff could not have been decreed. Accordingly, set aside the impugned judgment and decree passed by the trial Court and dismissed the suit of the plaintiff by allowing the appeal. Being aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff is before this Court.

8. Heard Ms. Jai.M.Patil, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri. Rama Ramachandra Iyer and Sri. Rohith.C.V., learned counsels for respondent Nos.1 and 2. Perused the materials on record.

9. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the grant of the schedule land in favour of the plaintiff is not seriously disputed. The possession of the schedule property by the plaintiff is virtually admitted by DW.2 who is none other than the brother of defendant No.1. The revenue records stand in the name of plaintiff. The defendants are not having any right, title or interest over the schedule property. Even according to the defence taken by the defendants the application filed for regularization of their possession was rejected by the Competent Authority. Under such circumstances, the trial Court rightly decreed the suit of the plaintiff but the First Appellate Court found that the schedule property is not identifiable with the boundaries mentioned in the plaint. Solely on that ground, the suit was came to be dismissed.

10. Learned counsel for the appellant further contended that for identification of the plaint schedule property, the appellant has produced the survey sketch drawn by the Tahsildhar appended to I.A.No.1/2017 filed for production of additional documents. This document identifies the schedule property and disproves the contention of the defendants. Learned counsel also submitted that other additional documents supporting the case of the plaintiff are also produced along with I.A.No.1/2017 filed under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC. Therefore, she prays for allowing the application and also the appeal in the interest of justice.

11. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents opposing the appeal submitted that admittedly, Sy.No.24 consists of vast extent of the land, in which, the portion of the land is said to have been allotted in favour of the plaintiff. The defendants are in possession and enjoyment of 03 acres of land in Sy.No.24. In that regard, the defendants have produced Ex.D5-Sketch, which clearly disclose that the defendants are in possession and enjoyment of the said 03 acres of land, which the plaintiff is claiming. The First Appellate Court on proper appreciation of the materials on record, dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. The schedule property cannot be identified only with the boundaries mentioned in the plaint. Therefore, he prays for dismissal of the appeal.

12. The appeal was admitted vide order dated 09.03.2020 to consider the following substantial question of law:

"Whether the Appellate Court could have refused a decree of injunction, when the plaintiff – appellant claimed to have had a grant of the suit property and the defendants did not contend that the land granted to the plaintiff was the land in respect of which they had made an application for regularization"

13. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both the parties. Perused the materials on record in the light of the substantial question of law.

14. It is the specific contention of the plaintiff that she was granted the schedule property bearing Sy.No.24/8P1 (old Sy.No.24, 8th block) totally measuring 4.30 acres situated at Anemadagu Village, Mandikal Hobli, Chickballapur Taluk. The plaintiff has not stepped into the witness box to depose about her contention. She has examined her power of attorney holder i.e., her grandson to speak about her contention. Exs.P2 to P4 are the RTC extracts standing in the name of the plaintiff in respect of 4.30 acres of land in Sy.No.24/8P1. Ex.P5 is receipt patta and Ex.P6 is the mutation register extract mutating the name of the plaintiff. Ex.P7 is the copy of the grant certificate. Strangely, no boundaries of the land granted in favour of plaintiff are mentioned in this document. Exs.P8 to P10 are the tax paid receipts. In none of these documents, the boundaries of the land granted in favour of the plaintiff are mentioned. Admittedly, the plaintiff has not produced any document to identify the plaint schedule property, which is part of the larger extent of the land. Even though it is contended that the application filed by the defendants for regularizing their claim over 03 acres of the land in the very same survey number, the plaintiff who has approached this Court seeking permanent injunction is required to prove the identity of the property for getting the discretionary relief of permanent injunction. When no such documents are produced before the Court, no relief of permanent injunction could be granted in favour of the plaintiff. Even if the right over 4.30 acres of land granted in favour of the plaintiff is to be admitted, the said portion of the land is to be identified in the larger extent of Sy.No.24. Therefore, the First Appellate Court was right in dismissing the suit of the plaintiff as the schedule property could not be identified.

15. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the appellant has filed I.A.No.1/2017 producing the survey sketch prepared by the Tahsildhar of Chickballapur Taluk, to show the boundaries of the schedule property. The certified copy of this document is obtained on 15.06.2013. The same was not produced either before the trial Court or before the First Appellate Court. An application under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC is filed before this Court producing as many as nine additional documents. However, learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance only on the survey sketch drawn by the Tahsildhar of Chickballapur Taluk, to contend that with the help of the survey sketch, the schedule property could be identified. The appellant has sworn an affidavit in support of the application.

16. Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC, bars production of additional evidence before the Appellate Court, unless specific grounds are made out as set out in Rule 27. The parties are not permitted to adduce the additional evidence as a matter of right. Learned counsel for the appellant has no explanation whatsoever for non-production of the additional documents before the trial Court. Even in the affidavit accompanying the application, there is no explanation as to why the documents were not produced at the first instance. No grounds are made out to bring the application within the exception to Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC. It is well settled proposition of law that unless a specific ground is made out, the parties are not permitted to produce the additional documents before the Appellate Court, that too in the second appeal filed under Section 100 of CPC, which has very limited scope. When the plaintiff approached the trial Court seeking the discretionary relief of permanent injunction, she was very well aware that the schedule property is to be identified with specific boundaries and sketch. But no effort is made for identification of the property. Even before this Court, no grounds are made out to permit production of additional evidence. Under such circumstances, I am of the opinion that the application is liable to be dismissed. When the suit property is not identifiable, the suit of the plaintiff is liable to be dismissed. The First Appellate Court on proper appreciation of the materials on record, rightly dismissed the appeal. I do not find any reason to interfere with the same. Accordingly, I answer substantial question of law in favour of the defendants and against the plaintiff.

In view of the discussions held above, I proceed to pass the following:

ORDER

(i) I.A.No.1/2017 is dismissed.

(ii) The appeal is dismissed with costs.

(iii) The judgment and decree dated 06.09.2017 in R.A.No.46/2016 on the file of the learned I Additional Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Chickballapur, is hereby confirmed.

(iv) The judgment and decreed dated 19.12.2015 in O.S.No.459/2013 on the file of the learned II Additional Civil Judge & JMFC, Chickballapur, is hereby set aside.

(v) Registry is directed to send back the trial Court records along with copy of this judgment.