R RANJANA Vs. N CHIDANANDA REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned Counsel for the appellant and the learned Counsel for the respondent.

(2.) THE appellant was the plaintiff before the trial court. The plaintiff had claimed that she was the absolute owner of a site bearing No.1, khata No.20, in Survey No.104 of Cholanayakanahalli, Bangalore North Taluk, R.T.Nagar Post, Bengaluru - 560 032, more fully described in the suit schedule. The plaintiff had claimed that she has purchased the suit property from one C.Nanjappa Reddy, Son of Gunda Reddy of Cholanayakanahalli, R.T.Nagar Post, Bengaluru, under a registered sale deed dated 12.8.1992. After the purchase of the property, which was a vacant site, the plaintiff had constructed a house and let out the same to a tenant.

(3.) THE learned Counsel for the appellant has now filed an application seeking to produce the following additional documents: A compromise petition under Order XXIII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, filed in OS 3382/1984, the order passed on the compromise petition, the rental agreement dated 1.11.2008 and six photographs of the suit property. The learned counsel for the respondent has filed serious objections to the said application and had contended that the documents sought to be produced were always available even during the pendency of the suit and therefore, unless the appellant is in a position to demonstrate that the circumstances are as are required to be established in terms of Order 27(1)(aa) and (b) of the CPC, it is not permissible for the appellant to introduce such documents as additional documents at the stage of the appeal, especially in the light of adverse findings which the appellant has suffered before the trial court.