R.N. Mittal, J. - (1.) THIS judgment will dispose of R.F.A. No. 388 of 1975 and C M No. 602/CI/I9SO
(2.) BRIEFLY , the facts are that the land comprised in Khasra Nos. 659 and 714 measuring 2 Bighas 1 Biswa Pukhta was acquired by the State Government It is stated that the Appellants were owner of the land and they had given it on perpetual leases to the predecessors -in -interest of Respondent Nos. 1 to 10 vide lease deed dated 8.8.1931 in which there was a condition that in case the land was acquired, the land owner would be entitled to whole of the compensation with respect to the land and the tenant with respect to the plantation. The Land Acquisition Collector gave his award dated 20 -1 -1968 under which he assessed Rs. 28,525.75 as compensation of the land. He also fixed compensation of the Henna plantation which had been planted by the Respondents at the rate of Rs. 4,800/ - per acre. The compensation amount was paid by the Collector to the landowners, and the compensation regarding Henna Plantation to the Respondent. The matter was referred to the District Judge under Sections 18 and 30 of the Land Acquisition Act for determining the compensation and its apportionment between the parties on the application of the Respondents. The Additional District Judge held that the amount of compensation fixed by the Collector was correct and that the Appellants were entitled to 25% of compensation and the Respondents to 75% thereof. The land owners have come up in appeal against the judgment of the Additional District Judge. They have also filed an application under Order 41 Rule 27, Code of Civil Procedure for taking on record mutation No. 1907 dated 2nd -May, 1936 regarding inheritance of Kidar Nath in favour of his nephews. The Respondents are contesting the application.
(3.) FIRST , I shall deal with C.M. application. The Appellants in order to prove their claim produced lease deed dated 8.8.1931 Ex. R -1 by which the land was given on perpetual lease by Shiv Lal and Chandan sons of Tulsi Ram, caste -Brahmin in favour of Kidar Nath son of Amrao Singh, caste Mahajan Aggarwal resident of Faridabad, tehsil. Ballabgarh on an annual lease amount of Rs. 28/ - w.e. of 1.61931. Kidar Nath died and the mutation which is now sought to be produced regarding his inheritance in favour of his nephews was attested. The land which is subject -matter of 'lease as given in the lease deed comprises in Khasra Nos. 515 and 566. The consolidation takes place in the village and during consolidation new khasra numbers, were allotted in lieu of the old Khasra numbers The new Khasra numbers allotted to the lessees are 659 and 714. As stated above, the Khasra numbers in dispute are 'the 'said two Khasra numbers namely 659 and 714. In the Jamabandi Exs. R - 2 and R -3, the amount of lease mentioned is Rs.28/ - per year. In the column of cultivation in the Jamabandi, the lessees are shown to be Mahajans. All the above -said things tally with these mentioned in the lease deed. However, the trial Court carne to the conclusion that it has not been shown that the Respondents got the property in inheritance from Kidar Nath. In order to prove. that fact, now the present mutation has been produced by the Appellants. It has been held by the Supreme Court in K. Venkataramiah v. Seetharama : A.I.R. 1963 S.C. 1526, that under Rule 27(1), the appellate Court has the power to allow additional evidence not only if it requires such evidence to enable it to pronounce judgment but also for any other substantial cause There may well be cases where even though the court finds that it is able to pronounce judgment on the state of record as it is and so it cannot strictly say that it requires additional evidence to enable it to pronounce judgment, it still considers that in the interest of justice something which remains obscure should be field up so that it can pronounce its judgment in a more satisfactory manner. Such a case will be one for allowing additional evidence for any other substantial cause under Rule 27 (1) (b) of the Code. Such requirement of the court is not likely to arise ordinarily unless some inherent lacuna or defect becomes, apparent on an examination of the evidence. It, is further observed, that it may well' be that the defect becomes apparent on an examination of the evidence. It is further observed that it may well be that the defect may be pointed out by a party or that a, party may; move -the Court to supply the defect, but the requirement must be the requirement of the Court upon its appreciation of the evidence as it stands.;