https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=193420 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. en-us Thu, 01 Mar 2001 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 28 Jul 2017 15:03:02 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=193420 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. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 01 Mar 2001 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=193420