Aparesh Kumar Singh, J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and respondent nos. 9 to 12 and 13. Rest of the respondents have also been validly served notice, but no one has appeared on their behalf to contest the case.
(2.) The application under Order 41, Rule 27 of Civil Procedure Code to adduce additional evidence in the nature of Memo of Appeal of S.A.R Appeal no. 44 R 15 of 201314 has been declined by learned Appellate Court of Additional Judicial Commissioner XIII, Ranchi by the impugned order dated 7th June, 2016. Defendant no. 1 in the Title (Partition) Suit no. 87 of 1994, who is the appellant in Title Appeal no. 58 of 2003 sought to bring on record the aforesaid Memo of Appeal in order to buttress his case that pieces of land being R.S. Plot nos. 757 and 760, Area 29 decimals and 51 decimals respectively under Khata no. 163 of Village Argora, P.S. Argora, Distt. Ranchi, was claimed by the plaintiff/respondent no. 1 as a self acquired property, whereas, Memo of Appeal preferred by them in S.A.R. Appeal no. 44 R 15 of 201314 goes to show that the said pieces of land were claimed by them through settlement in favour of grandfather, namely, Raghunath Sahu by a Patta Namudin dated 11th November, 1952 after necessary sanction of Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi. In the Memo of Appeal, respondent no. 1 had taken a plea that these lands stood recorded in the name of Rongeya Oraon, who came in possession over the land on the basis of exchange as mentioned in Khatiyan itself. Raghunath Sahu is the common ancestor of the plaintiff and defendant. After the death of ancestor of both the parties, the appellant in S.A.R Appeal has claimed to have derived peaceful possession over the land and got it mutated before Circle Officer, Ranchi. They have also claimed to have constructed Pucca house over the lands and holding was also created under Ranchi Municipal Corporation being Holding no. 2003 and Ward no. 10. The appellant ventured to bring this Memo of Appeal to demolish the case of the plaintiff/respondent no. 2 on the question of devolution of property claimed by them.
(3.) Learned Appellate Court, however, rejected the prayer being guided by the fact that there are no foundational basis to support it at the appellate stage. The previous attempts to adduce additional evidence by the appellant were negated up to this Court in W.P(C) No. 1517 of 2016 and 1956 of 2016. The appeal was of the year 2003 and as per the observation of learned Appellate Court these attempts were lingering tactics on the part of the appellant. The respondent nos. 9 to 12 and 13 both have filed their counter affidavit.;