CHANDRIKA PRASAD Vs. LALJEE SAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Themselves adopting a strange procedure in Title Appeal No.09 of 2012 by filing application under Order XLI Rule 27 (1) (aa) C.P.C, the petitioners feel aggrieved of rejection of the said application by order dated 10.09.2015.

(2.) Title Suit No.29 of 1999 was instituted by the petitioners for a decree of declaration of their right, title and interest based on the title of the vendor-Mostt. Budhani Sahun comprised in plot no.1228 at village-Hariharpur, district-Garhwa. The sale deed no.6641 of 1975 executed by a person allegedly impersonating Mostt. Budhani Sahun was also challenged. The suit was dismissed by judgment dated 20.03.201 Aggrieved, the petitioners preferred Title Appeal No.09 of 201 In the pending appeal for taking sale deed no. 188 of 1992 as additional evidence, an application was filed on 03.12013. This application has been rejected by the impugned order dated 10.09.2015.

(3.) Referring to decision in "North Eastern Railway Administration, Gorakhpur Vrs. Bhagwan Das" reported in (2008) 8 SCC 511, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that for arriving at a just decision in the case sale deed no.188 of 1992 is a vital piece of evidence which should have been taken on record by the appellate court. It is contended that once a plea of forgery has been raised, sufficient opportunities should have been granted to the plaintiffs to prove their case.