TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2006 (4) TMI 590
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....order of the same date whereby two Civil Application Nos. 964 and 1150 of 2002 in First Appeal No. 969 of 1994 moved by the appellants for adducing additional evidence were dismissed. All the three appeals are being disposed of by this judgment. 2. Before adverting to the facts of the case it is necessary to briefly notice the facts and the proceedings which preceded the filing of the suit by the State of Gujarat. The respondents claimed to be the owners of 138 Vighas 19 Vasas of land recorded under various numbers in the Fesal Patrak of the year 1892. According to the respondents out of the aforesaid lands, lands admeasuring 85 Vighas 1 vasa were acquired by the then State of Baroda. Thus an area of 53 Vighas and 18 vasas remained in the ownership and possession of the respondents. 3. On September 23, 1960 one J. Patel applied to the Commissioner of Baroda Municipal Corporation for grant of a plot out of the lands which were in possession of the respondents. The respondents objected and filed an application before the Commissioner claiming ownership of the aforesaid lands. Ultimately the application of the respondents was referred to the City Survey Officer, Baroda for enqui....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ated November 29, 1991 was illegal and without jurisdiction. It also prayed for declaration that the suit lands were in the ownership of the Government and that the defendants/respondents herein had no right in respect of the suit lands. The suit was contested by the respondents herein and ultimately by judgment and decree of March 21, 1994 the learned Civil Judge dismissed the suit of the State. The State thereafter preferred First Appeal No. 969 of 1994 in the High Court against the judgment and decree of the Civil Judge dismissing its suit. The appeal was filed on May 12, 1994. In the appeal, an application was filed on June 21, 2000 being CA No. 4849 of 2000 for leave to lead additional evidence. The said application was dismissed by the High Court by its order dated June 22, 2000. 6. A special leave petition filed against the order of the High Court dismissing the application to lead additional evidence was withdrawn by the State on July 19, 2001 since learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that he would advise the petitioners to withdraw the special leave petition with liberty to raise the point in the appeal at the appropriate stage, should it become necessary. On ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssary to obtain such evidence for enabling it to pronounce judgment. This provision did not entitle the appellate court to let in fresh evidence at the appellate stage where even without such evidence it can pronounce judgment in the case. It does not entitle the appellate court to let in fresh evidence only for purposes of pronouncement of judgment in a particular way. The High Court referred to the earlier proceedings before various authorities and came to the conclusion that though the appellants had sufficient opportunity to bring the evidence on record,, for reasons best known to it, the State did not produce the entire evidence before the trial court and it was only 8 years after the dismissal of the suit that the applications were filed for adducing additional evidence in the appeal. The High Court, therefore, dismissed the applications for adducing additional evidence. 8. We find no error in the approach of the High Court. We have earlier noticed the long history of litigation which preceded the filing of the suit. The documents sought to be brought on record are not documents which were discovered later or came into existence after the filing of the suit. The docu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t proves that the suit of the plaintiff for decision on the ownership of the suit property in favour of the plaintiff, is barred by period of limitation? And further whether the same is without jurisdiction with respect to the order passed by the Revenue Tribunal? Issue Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 were decided against the plaintiffs while issue Nos. 5, 6 and 7 were decided in favour of the defendants. 11. Shri Lalit, appearing on behalf of the appellants/State, submitted that the total lands in occupation of the Fatehsinh Regiment and later by the State Reserve Police since 1960 had an area of 138 vighas 19 vasas. Out of this, the lands claimed by the respondents was 53 vighas 18 vasas comprised in Survey No. 371 - admeasuring 25 vighas 12 vasas and Survey No. 372 - admeasuring 28 vighas 6 vasas. It is also not in dispute that lands to the extent of 85 vighas 1 vasa was earlier acquired by the then State of Vadodara in three acquisition proceedings under three Notifications dated November 12, 1894; November 22, 1894 and January 25, 1895. If this area is excluded from the total area of 138 vighas 19 vasas the remaining lands comprised in Survey Nos. 371 and 372 would be 53 vighas 18 va....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the appellants/plaintiffs have failed to prove their title to the lands in dispute. The courts below have not found any evidence of interpolation or tampering of Government records. The State has also produced no evidence of its title, and the suit has been rightly dismissed because the State must succeed on the strength of its own title. 14. He submitted that the basic document is the Fesal Patrak which proves beyond doubt that Survey Nos. 371 and 372 comprised of lands measuring 53 vighas 17 vasas. There is no dispute that some other lands owned by the respondents were acquired by the then State of Baroda. There is nothing to show that the lands comprised in Survey Nos. 371 and 372 were acquired. No evidence was produced before the trial court which could prove to the satisfaction of the court that any part of the lands comprised in these two survey numbers was acquired. He drew our attention to the findings recorded by the Tribunal wherein the Tribunal found that the State Government was guilty of keeping back important documents in its possession and neither produced the same before the Deputy Collector nor did it give to the respondents certified copies thereof when they a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on is made on last page of the file thus as per Order land of Exb 197, 180 and 199 went to Fathesinh Regiment so remaining 53 Vighas also Plaintiff could not state that / prove that the disputed land is owned by them. Whereas as discussed above the overall facts of the case, documents produced by both the plaintiff and defendant, maps, oral evidences, arguments etc. if considered and also considering the Order of Gujarat Rev Tribunal dated 29.11.1991, the disputed land 53 Bigha and 17 Vasa which is in part B Tika No. 27/15, 27/16, 27/17 bearing Survey No. 1/A/2 of City Survey Map of Vadodara, admeasuring 53 Vigha 17 Vasa is owned and possessed and enjoyed by the Defendant is proved. In such circumstances plaintiffs are not entitled for relief as prayed for by them. Hence order as below is passed. 17. The High Court has also appreciated the entire evidence on record and concurred with the findings recorded by the trial court. The High Court has noticed the evidence of Gulamnabi Rasul Shaikh, Ex. 25, who was examined as a witness on behalf of the appellants/plaintiffs to the effect that prior to the acquisition of lands for Fatehsinh Regiment, the total lands admeasuring 138 vigha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t to take a different view of the matter in the appeal because the Trial Judge had the opportunity to mark the demeanor of the witnesses and after considering their oral evidence coupled with documentary evidence if the learned Judge has thought it fit to rely upon one set of evidence, which is in favour of the defendants then this Court would not take different view of the matter in appeal. 18. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submitted that the concurrent findings recorded by the trial court as well as by the High Court, after an exhaustive considerations of the evidence on record, should not be interfered with by this Court. Even though this objection was raised before us, we permitted the parties to take us through the entire evidence on record only to satisfy ourselves as to whether there was any infirmity or illegality in the findings recorded by the Courts below justifying interference by this Court. Having considered the evidence on record and the findings recorded by the trial court as well as by the High Court we are of the view that no ground has been made out for interference with the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the courts below. The....