https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=171766 Adverse inference for non-production of documents is not automatic and requires proper discovery, inspection or other procedural steps; absent such compliance, non-production alone does not justify it. A document placed on record at the appellate stage is not proved or admitted merely because no rebuttal is filed; proof must still comply with the Evidence Act and the Code of Civil Procedure. Additional evidence in appeal may be received only within the strict limits of Order XLI Rule 27 and on judicially assessed necessity. A suit for bare declaration of title without consequential possession relief is barred where further relief is available, and the plaintiff must prove the pleaded foundation of title. en-us Tue, 17 Jul 2012 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 14 Aug 2025 11:05:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=171766 Adverse inference for non-production of documents is not automatic and requires proper discovery, inspection or other procedural steps; absent such compliance, non-production alone does not justify it. A document placed on record at the appellate stage is not proved or admitted merely because no rebuttal is filed; proof must still comply with the Evidence Act and the Code of Civil Procedure. Additional evidence in appeal may be received only within the strict limits of Order XLI Rule 27 and on judicially assessed necessity. A suit for bare declaration of title without consequential possession relief is barred where further relief is available, and the plaintiff must prove the pleaded foundation of title. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 17 Jul 2012 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=171766