- (1.) THIS is a second appeal under sec. 224, Rajasthan Tenancy Act. Appellants filed a suit under sec. 188, Rajasthan Tenancy Act in the court of S. D. O. , Dholpur with respect to field No. 1066 measuring 2 bighas and 6 biswas of village Sewar Pali, Tehsil Badi. Appellants pleaded that this field was a part of old field number 775 measuring 5 bighas, that they are in cultivatory possession of this land since 4-3-63 when this portion was separated from the original khasra number during the settlement operations and a parcha was issued in their favour. Apprehending interference by the defendants respondent in the peaceful enjoyment of the land in dispute, the plaintiffs prayed for a decree permanently restraining the respondents from interfering with their possession.
(2.) THE respondents claimed to be in cultivatory possession of lands in dispute and denied the appellants right to seek an injunction. Four issues were framed and after considering the evidence brought by the two parties on record, the court of first instance decreed appellants suit. Respondents appealed against the learned S. D. O's decision dated 23-10-67, succeeded in establishing to the satisfaction of the learned Revenue Appellate Authority that the decision of the lower court was illegal and obtained an appellate decree to the effect that the plaintiffs suit shall stand dismissed This judgment and decree of the Revenue Appellate Authority, Kota dated 3-2-70 has been challenged in the present second appeal on the grounds inter-alia that the appellants had succeeded in proving the division of the land and their cultivatory possession over the portion in dispute, that the fact of division and the appellants cultivatory possession was admitted by some of the witnesses produced by the defendant, that the settlement patta which has been issued in his favour was not accepted by the learned Revenue Appellate Authority and that the learned Revenue Appellate Authority has misread the evidence and misapplied that law. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and examined the record. At the very outset we may consider the appellant's request under Order 41 Rule 27,c. P. C. for taking the settlement patta on record. Learned counsel for the appellant in this connection referred to the decision of the Board in 1970 R. R. D. 38 (Parbhati vs. Seokaran) while it was contended by the learned counsel for the other party that this patta cannot be accepted because the requirements of Order 41 Rule 27 C. P. C. are not fulfilled and such a document can be accepted only when it is required by the court. Order 41 Rule 27 gives the circumstances in which documents can be accepted in evidence at the appellate stage. It authorises the appellate court to allow production of a document if the appellate court requires the document to enable it to pronounce judgment or for any other substantial cause. The necessity for the production of the document must be felt by the appellate court to attract the provisions of O. 41 Rule 27 (1) (b ). This rule would not authorise the production of a document at the appellate stage if the document had not been produced in the lower court merely because the party seeking its production considers such documents necessary for deciding the matter. It is not the satisfaction of the party that decides the issue. The party has to show it to the satisfaction of the appellate court that the document is required for enabling it to pronounce judgment or for any other substantial cause and the production of the document can be allowed only if the party succeeds in so convincing the appellate court. The decision of the appellants application therefore depends upon the decision of the question whether this court considers the production of this document necessary to enable it to pronounce judgment or for any other substantial cause. We are of the opinion that the request for the production of this document should be allowed and our reasons for this decision are as follows : - The present patta is based upon the settlement parcha filed by the appellant in the court of first instance. Entries in the settlement patta now being filed are materialy same as entries in settlement parcha cum-notice. The Jamabandi having not been produced and the settlement operations having been completed, the settlement patta which is issued in the manner prescribed by law is an important document relevant for deciding the question of possession. The court of first instance had used the settlement parcha filed by the appellant to substantiate its finding that the appellant had succeeded in proving cultivatory possession over the land in dispute. The learned Revenue Appellate Authority rejected this parcha, out of hand, not because he felt the entries in the parcha are incorrect but because he felt that this settlement parcha-cum-notice lacked finality. The settlement parcha now sought to be produced is the result of the final adjudication of the matter so far as the settlement operations are concerned. Since it is not contended by the other party that this parcha has been challenged by them in competent forum, we therefore consider this document material and relevant and allow the application. Sec. 188 Rajasthan Tenancy Act authorises the grant of an injunction in favour of a tenant whose right to or enjoyment of the whole or part of his holding is invaded by any other person. The evidence on record was considered sufficient by the court of first instance, which had occasion to watch the demeanour of witnesses, to prove that the plaintiff appellant was in cultivatory possession of this land as a tenant. The contention of the plaintiff that these lands held jointly by the parties, earlier, were divided and the plaintiff appellant is in cultivatory possession of this land since settlement is accepted by DW-1, DW-3 and DW-4. This evidence read in 'he light of the settlement parcha and now the settlement patta is sufficient to prove that the appellant was in cultivatory possession as a tenant of this land on the date of the suit. The court of first instance was therefore perfectly justified in deciding the relevant issue in favour of the appellant and decreeing his suit. The learned Revenue Appellant Authority has not gone into the evidence adduced by the two parties on the question of cultivatory possession and seems to have rejected the documentary evidence of the appellant namely the settlement parcha merely because it was a parcha-cum-notice. Though a parcha-cum-notice is not conclusive evidence of cultivatory possession because the other party has the right to go before the settlement authorities and contest the claim, there is no bar to consider this as relevant piece of evidence specially when the entries in such parcha are corroborated by the testimony of the witnesses from both the sides. The crucial question in this case is covered by issue no. 1 and the learned Revenue Appellate Authority was in error in accepting the appeal without going in to the evidence of both the parties and without giving his reasons for not accepting the evidence produced by the appellant. Where the appellate court disagrees with the findings of the court of first instance on question of fact, the first appellate court is bound to discuss the evidence of the parties in as much detail as is done by the court of first instance and where the first appellate court has failed to examine evidence of both the parties and discuss i*, the decision cannot be upheld when it seeks to reverse a well considered decision of the court of first instance. We are of the opinion that there is enough evidence on record as held by the learned S. D. O. to prove that the plaintiff appellants were in cultivatory possession of this land since the last settlement as tenants as evidenced by the settlement parcha and patta and that this appeal must succeed. Accordingly the appeal is accepted with costs, the judgment and decree of the learned Revenue Appellate Authority, Kota are quashed and the judgment and decree of court of first instance are upheld. . ;