Chandrashekhar, J. - (1.) Aggrieved by order dated 16.09.2013 in Title Appeal No. 40 of 2009 whereby, applications dated 18.09.2012 and 11.12.2013 seeking permission to adduce additional evidence has been dismissed, the present writ petition has been filed.
(2.) The petitioners were defendants in Title Suit No. 133 of 2003. The suit was instituted seeking declaration of right and title of the plaintiffs over Schedule-A properties and for a declaration that sale-deed dated 11.09.1978 is illegal, invalid and inoperative. In the suit the plaintiffs claimed title over Schedule-A properties by virtue of sale-deed dated 27.10.1972. The plaintiffs asserted that the land in question was settled in favour of Kaushaliya Devi and others by the exlandlords and after the vesting of jamindari,the landlord filed return showing Kaushaliya Devi and others as tenants. Vide Case No. 57 of 196061, the said Kaushaliya Devi and others paid rent to the State of Bihar and rent receipts were issued in their name. The plaintiffs are purchasers from legal heirs and successors of the said Kaushaliya Devi who executed a registered sale deed on 27.10.1972 in their favour. The defendants denied acquisition of right, title and interest over the suit property by the said Kaushaliya Devi and others. The Hukumnama through which settlement was made was denied. They claimed that settlement in respect of the suit land was made in favour of one Mana Devi and others who paid salami and came in possession of the suit land. The defendants claimed that the settlee in lieu of valuable consideration executed registered sale-deed dated 09.09.1978 in favour of defendant No. 1 and father of defendant nos. 2 to 5, defendant nos. 6 and 7 and father of defendant nos. 8, 9 and 10. The suit was decreed on contest vide judgment and order dated 04.08.2009 which was challenged by the defendants by filing Title Appeal No. 40 of 2009. In the pending title appeal the defendants filed applications dated 18.09.2012 and 11.12.2013 under Order 41, Rule 27 C.P.C. In the said applications the defendants sought permission of the Court to produce a copy of Hukumnama and copy of return submitted in the Anchal.
(3.) As noticed above, in the written statement there is no foundation for leading evidence on the basis of the documents mentioned in applications dated 18.09.2012 and 11.12.2013. After a full-fledged trial, on a plea that subsequently the petitioners could know about certain documents, application under Order 41, Rule 27 C.P.C. cannot be allowed. The plea taken by the petitioners that they had no knowledge about the documents mentioned in the applications dated 18.09.2012 and 11.12.2013 cannot be believed for the reason that the sale-deed dated 11.09.1978 must contain recitals indicating filing of return and Hukumnama.;