Title and additional evidence in property dispute: liquidator's claim stood, and consent decree was refused as fresh evidence.

A company property dispute turned on whether the appellants could prove a better title or interest than the official liquidator and whether they could adduce a consent decree as additional evidence. The court accepted the allotment letter and possession certificate in favour of PFSL as genuine, noted receipt of full and final payment, and found no credible link showing that the appellants or their claimed associate had any lawful basis to deal with the property; the liquidator's title-based claim therefore remained undisturbed. On additional evidence, the court held that Order 41 Rule 27 requires judicial necessity or substantial cause shown from the record, and the appellants failed to show due diligence or any lacuna justifying admission; the request was rejected.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the appellants established a better right, title or interest in the property than the official liquidator so as to dislodge the company court's finding in favour of the liquidator; (ii) whether the appellants were entitled to produce the consent decree as additional evidence in appeal under Order 41 Rule 27(1)(b) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Issue (i): Whether the appellants established a better right, title or interest in the property than the official liquidator so as to dislodge the company court's finding in favour of the liquidator.

Analysis: The allotment letter and possession certificate in favour of PFSL were accepted as genuine and recorded receipt of full and final payment. The appellants failed to show any credible link between appellant No. 1 and Radhe Estate Developers, or any lawful basis on which that concern could deal with the property. The alleged transactions of 1997 and 1999 did not establish that PFSL had no title or possession, and the company court's finding that PFSL's right in the property stood established remained unshaken.

Conclusion: The issue was decided against the appellants and in favour of the official liquidator.

Issue (ii): Whether the appellants were entitled to produce the consent decree as additional evidence in appeal under Order 41 Rule 27(1)(b) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Analysis: Additional evidence can be admitted only where the appellate court requires it to pronounce judgment or where there is some other substantial cause, and the requirement must be of the court, not of a party as of right. No lacuna or defect in the record was shown, the document had been within the appellants' knowledge, and no due diligence was demonstrated for not placing it before the company court. The request therefore did not satisfy the statutory test for additional evidence.

Conclusion: The issue was decided against the appellants and the consent decree was not allowed to be produced as additional evidence.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed on merits and the company court's order was sustained, with the ancillary request for stay also refused.

Ratio Decidendi: Additional evidence in appeal may be admitted only on the court's necessity or for substantial cause shown by the record, and a party cannot insist on its admission where no lacuna, due diligence, or judicial necessity is established; a genuine allotment and possession record supported by accepted documentary evidence will prevail unless displaced by credible contrary proof.

---