Additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC cannot fill lacunae; tenant possession justified the compensation apportionment.

Additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC is discretionary and cannot be used to fill lacunae; because the documents were already within the appellant's possession and could have been produced at trial, the application was rightly rejected. On compensation apportionment, the record, including revenue entries and oral evidence, showed the respondents were Gair Marusi tenants in possession at acquisition. Applying the settled rule, a tenant in possession is entitled to three-fourths of the compensation and the landlord to one-fourth, so the respondents' share was correctly affirmed and the appeal failed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether additional evidence could be permitted under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. (ii) Whether the appellant-tenant was entitled to interfere with the apportionment of compensation on the ground that the acquired land was in the possession of the respondents as Gair Marusi tenants at the time of acquisition.

Issue (i): Whether additional evidence could be permitted under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Analysis: Additional evidence is not a matter of right. It can be allowed only when the party shows that despite due diligence the evidence was not within its knowledge or could not be produced earlier, or when the statutory conditions for reception of such evidence are satisfied. The documents sought to be produced were within the appellant's possession and could have been tendered at the trial stage. Allowing them at the appellate stage would only fill lacunae in the appellant's case.

Conclusion: The application for additional evidence was rightly rejected.

Issue (ii): Whether the appellant-tenant was entitled to interfere with the apportionment of compensation on the ground that the acquired land was in the possession of the respondents as Gair Marusi tenants at the time of acquisition.

Analysis: The evidence on record, including khasra girdawaris and oral testimony, established continuous possession of Ram Kumar and Khem Ram as tenants/Gair Marusis at the relevant time. The Gram Panchayat failed to produce the alleged subsequent lessees or any convincing material showing dispossession or correction of revenue entries. On the settled rule applied by the Court, a tenant in possession at the time of acquisition is entitled to 3/4th of the compensation and the landlord to 1/4th.

Conclusion: The findings that the respondents were tenants in possession and were entitled to 3/4th share of the compensation were affirmed against the appellant.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed in full and the trial court's apportionment of compensation was upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: An application for additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 cannot be used to fill lacunae, and a tenant in possession of acquired land at the time of acquisition is entitled to the tenant's share in compensation according to the settled apportionment rule.

---