Additional evidence in appeal cannot fill gaps, while concurrent title findings stand unless shown perverse.

Additional evidence at the appellate stage may be admitted only when the appellate court needs it to pronounce judgment or when substantial cause is shown; evidence available long before trial and omitted without explanation cannot be used to fill gaps in a party's case, so the request was rejected. Concurrent factual findings on title, based on revenue records and oral evidence, were not interfered with in the absence of perversity or legal error under Article 136. However, where the record clearly established acquisition of a limited identified portion, relief was moulded to declare the State's ownership only over that proved extent.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the appellants were entitled to adduce additional evidence at the appellate stage under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. (ii) Whether the State had proved its title to the disputed lands, and whether limited declaration of ownership could be granted in respect of the acquired portion only.

Issue (i): Whether the appellants were entitled to adduce additional evidence at the appellate stage under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Analysis: Additional evidence at the appellate stage is permissible only where the appellate court requires the evidence to pronounce judgment or where some other substantial cause is shown. The documents sought to be introduced were part of Government records and were available long before the suit and trial. No satisfactory explanation was furnished for non-production earlier, and the request was made after a long lapse of time. The attempt was treated as one to fill up the lacunae in the State's case rather than to meet a genuine evidentiary necessity.

Conclusion: The applications for adducing additional evidence were rightly rejected.

Issue (ii): Whether the State had proved its title to the disputed lands, and whether limited declaration of ownership could be granted in respect of the acquired portion only.

Analysis: The courts below concurrently found, on a detailed appraisal of the revenue records and oral evidence, that the State had not proved its title to the bulk of the disputed lands and that the contemporaneous Fesal Patrak supported the respondents' ownership. Those factual findings were neither shown to be perverse nor based on exclusion of material evidence, and no interference was warranted with the concurrent findings under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. At the same time, one later notification showed acquisition of a small identified portion of land, and the record justified granting relief only to that limited extent. In the interests of justice and equity, the declaration of title was moulded to cover that acquired portion alone.

Conclusion: The State failed to establish title to the disputed lands except for 2 vighas 5 vasas appertaining to the identified survey numbers, in respect of which ownership was declared in favour of the State.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the refusal of additional evidence failed, the concurrent findings on title were substantially maintained, and the decree was modified only to recognise the State's ownership over the proved acquired extent.

Ratio Decidendi: Additional evidence in appeal cannot be admitted to fill gaps in a party's case, and concurrent findings of fact based on evidence will not be disturbed unless they are shown to be perverse or illegal; limited relief may nevertheless be moulded where the record conclusively proves ownership of a specific acquired portion.

---