First appellate courts must consider essential additional evidence under Order XLI Rules 28 and 29.

The plaintiff, Annammal, sued for declaration of title, recovery of possession and damages, claiming that 2.27 acres in Survey No. 3 had been allotted to her in an oral partition and that the fourth defendant trespassed in 1995.

The fourth defendant relied on a registered sale deed dated 29 March 1978 from the plaintiff’s alleged co-owners and on documents relating to possession.

The trial court decreed the suit; the first appellate court set aside the damages award but affirmed declaration and recovery of possession.

In the second appeal, the High Court considered the appellant’s challenge to the first appellate court’s rejection of an application to receive additional evidence.

1. Whether the first appellate court ought to have received the additional documents tendered under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC for deciding the appeal.

2. Whether the second appeal should be decided on the merits or the matter remanded for the first appellate court to consider the additional evidence and reassess the appeal.

Section 100 CPC governs second appeals on substantial questions of law.

Order XLI Rule 27 CPC permits additional evidence in appeal where its requirements are met; Rules 28 and 29 prescribe the procedure for taking such evidence and determining the points to which it relates.

Revenue records may evidence revenue entries but do not, by themselves, establish title to immovable property.

A plaintiff seeking declaration of title bears the burden of establishing that title by proper evidence.

The High Court noted that the plaintiff’s case relied principally on a settlement enquiry notice and a Survey Land Register extract, while the defendant relied on a sale deed and possession-related records.

The documents sought to be introduced in the first appeal included settlement and adangal extracts, a village map and patta records; the High Court considered them potentially material to adjudication.

It held that the first appellate court had rejected the application on an inadequate ground—namely, that certain documents did not include Survey No. 4/1, although the suit concerned Survey No. 3.

Because the additional documents could affect the appellate assessment, the High Court remitted the matter without deciding the parties’ substantive title claims.

The matter was remanded to that court to receive the documents filed in I.A. No. 1472 of 2004, follow the procedure under Order XLI Rules 28 and 29 CPC, and decide the appeal on its merits within four months of receiving the judgment.

C.M.P. No. 10847 of 2026 was dismissed, C.M.P. No. 15788 of 2026 was allowed, and there was no order as to costs.