Supreme Court of India
GOBIND SINGH AND ORS.versusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
- Citation
- 2026 INSC 211
- Decided
- 9 March 2026
- Disposal
- Dismissed
- Bench
- VIKRAM NATH
Holding
The High Court did not err; its omission to decide the Order XLI Rule 27 application did not cause miscarriage of justice and the application was correctly rejected as it failed to meet the statutory conditions for admission of additional evidence.
Summary
The appellants, Gobind Singh and others, sued the Union of India and others for a declaration of title and permanent injunction over land in Gwalior. The trial court decreed in their favour, but the respondents appealed; during the appeal the appellants filed an application under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC to produce certified copies of the General Land Register as additional evidence. The High Court allowed the appeal, dismissed the appellants' review and the application for additional evidence, holding that the earlier decree was not binding on the Union and that the conditions for admitting fresh evidence were not met. The Supreme Court examined whether the High Court’s failure to expressly rule on the Order XLI application caused a miscarriage of justice and whether the application satisfied the statutory criteria. It held that the High Court acted correctly, the omission did not amount to manifest injustice, and the application was rightly rejected, affirming the High Court’s judgments. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed.
Issues considered
- Whether the High Court was required to adjudicate the Order XLI Rule 27 application before deciding the appeal.
- Whether the failure to decide that application resulted in manifest injustice warranting Supreme Court interference.
- Whether the conditions for admitting additional evidence under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC were satisfied.
- Whether the decree passed in the earlier suit by the appellants' predecessors is binding on the Union of India.
- Whether the appellants could rely on adverse possession to perfect title.
Legislation cited
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908s. Order XLI Rule 27
Headnote
Issue for Consideration Whether the High Court’s omission to expressly adjudicate the application filed u/Or.XLI, r.27 of CPC while deciding the first appeal has resulted in any manifest injustice or miscarriage of justice so as to warrant interference by this Court. Headnotes† Code Or.XLI, r.27 – Appellant instituted suit seeking a declaration of title and a decree of permanent injunction against the respondents-defendants – Trial Court decreed the suit – Respondent-defendants preferred first appeal before the High Court – During the pendency of the
Subjects
Order XLI Rule 27 CPCGeneral Land Register (GLR)Adverse PossessionTrespassersState OwnershipAdditional evidenceRevenue recordsInherent defect in caseDeclaration of titleValid titleDocumentary evidenceTitleOwnershipPossessionunscrupulous litigants
Judgment
[2026] 3 S.C.R. 277 : 2026 INSC 211
Gobind Singh and Ors.
v.
Union of India and Ors.
(Civil Appeal No(s). 5168-5169 of 2011)
09 March 2026
[Vikram Nath* and Sandeep Mehta, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Whether the High Court’s omission to expressly adjudicate the
application filed u/Or.XLI, r.27 of CPC while deciding the first appeal
has resulted in any manifest injustice or miscarriage of justice so
as to warrant interference by this Court.
Headnotes†
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Or.XLI, r.27 – Appellant
instituted suit seeking a declaration of title and a decree of
permanent injunction against the respondents-defendants –
Trial Court decreed the suit – Respondent-defendants preferred
first appeal before the High Court – During the pendency of
the appeal, the appellant-plaintiffs filed an application u/Or.XLI,
r.27 of the CPC seeking to place on record certified copies
of the General Land Register maintained by the respondent-
defendants – The High Court allowed the appeal filed by the
respondent-defendants – Aggrieved, the appellant-plaintiffs
instituted a review petition before the High Court primarily on
the ground that the application for additional evidence was
not decided – The High Court dismissed the review petition
and application for additional evidence – Correctness:
Held: The High Court has committed no error in rendering the
impugned judgments – The appellate court may permit additional
evidence only upon being satisfied that the conditions expressly
stipulated under Order XLI Rule 27 of CPC are fulfilled – The parties
do not possess any vested or automatic right to seek admission of
additional evidence at the appellate stage – The appellant-plaintiffs
were, from the outset, fully aware that the respondent-defendants
had not been impleaded as parties in the earlier civil suit instituted
by their predecessors – Having founded their claim upon a decree
which was non-est insofar as the respondent-defendants were
* Author
278 [2026] 3 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
concerned, it was impermissible for the appellant-plaintiffs to
seek to introduce additional evidence at the appellate stage to
cure the inherent defects in their case – The present suit being
one for declaration of title, it was incumbent upon the appellant-
plaintiffs, if they indeed possessed a valid title, to adduce their
best and complete evidence at the stage of trial before the court
of first instance, where such evidence could have been produced
as a matter of right – Further, even at the stage of the earlier suit
instituted by the predecessors-in-interest of the appellant-plaintiffs,
their consistent case was one of lawful title to the suit property –
No plea of adverse possession was ever raised – The additional
evidence, namely, the entries in the General Land Register, is a
mere recording of the land in suit as private land in the GLR does
not in any manner benefit the appellants claim of ownership –
Whereas, the respondent-defendants have traced their title to the
decision of the Union of India dated 17.07.1953, pursuant to which
the suit land, along with other immovable properties, vested in the
respondent-defendants in terms of title, ownership and possession –
The application for additional evidence was thus rightly rejected by
the High Court. [Paras 11, 11.4, 11.8, 11.10, 11.11, 11.15]
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Or.XLI, r.27:
Held: Rule 27, being couched in negative terms, makes it
abundantly clear that parties to an appeal are not entitled to
adduce additional evidence, whether oral or documentary, save and
except in the circumstances expressly enumerated therein – The
provision contemplates only three eventualities in which additional
evidence may be permitted: first, where the court which passed
the decree has refused to admit evidence which ought to have
been admitted; second, where the party seeking to adduce such
evidence establishes that, notwithstanding the exercise of due
diligence, the evidence was not within its knowledge or could not
have been produced at the time when the decree under appeal
was passed; and third, where the appellate court itself requires any
document to be produced or any witness to be examined in order
to enable it to pronounce judgment or for any other substantial
cause. [Para 11.3]
Case Law Cited
Union of India v. Ibrahim Uddin [2012] 8 SCR 35 : (2012) 8 SCC
148; State of Karnataka v. K.C. Subramanya [2013] 10 SCR 144 :
(2014) 13 SCC 468 – relied on.
[2026] 3 S.C.R. 279
Gobind Singh and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors.
List of Acts
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
List of Keywords
Order XLI Rule 27 CPC; General Land Register (GLR); Adverse
Possession; Trespassers; State Ownership; Additional evidence;
Revenue records; Inherent defect in case; Declaration of title;
Valid title; Documentary evidence; Title; Ownership: Possession;
unscrupulous litigants.
Case Arising From
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No(s). 5168-5169
of 2011
From the Judgment and Order dated 12.08.2009 and 15.03.2011
of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Gwalior in FA No. 80 of
1996 and RP No. 300 of 2009, respectively.
Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellant(s):
Anupam Lal Das, Sr. Adv., Kunal Verma, Mrs. Yugandhara Pawar
Jha, Bhanu Thakur, Ms. Swati Mishra.
Advs. for the Respondent(s):
K M Nataraj, A.S.G., V Chitambresh, Sr. Adv., Mukesh Kumar
Maroria, Rajan Kumar Chourasia, Mrs. Swati Ghildiyal, Anuj Srinivas
Udupa, Bhuvan Kapoor, Chitransh Sharma, Mrs. Rekha Pandey,
Abhimanyu Singh, GA, Harmeet Singh Ruprah, Anil Hooda.
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Judgment
Vikram Nath, J.
1. The present appeals, by special leave, are directed against the
judgment dated 12th August, 2009, and the subsequent judgment
rendered in review on 15th March, 2011, by the High Court of Madhya
Pradesh, Bench Gwalior,1 in First Appeal No. 80 of 1996 and Review
1 Hereinafter, referred to as “High Court”.
280 [2026] 3 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
Petition No. 300 of 2009, respectively whereby the appeal filed by
the Union of India was allowed and the review of the appellant was
dismissed. By the aforesaid orders, the judgment and decree dated
25 March 1996 passed by the Court of the Vth Additional District
Judge, Gwalior2, in Civil Suit No. 5-A of 1990 was set aside and the
suit was dismissed.
2. The appellants3 herein instituted in Civil Suit No. 5-A of 1990, seeking
a declaration of title and a decree of permanent injunction against
the defendants4. Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 were arrayed as defendant
Nos. 1 to 4, respectively, in the said suit.
FACTS OF THE CASE: -
3. The facts, insofar as they are necessary for the disposal of the
present appeals, are set out hereinafter: -
3.1. The case of the appellant-plaintiffs is that the land bearing
Survey No. 2029, admeasuring 8 Bighas and 10 Biswas,
situated in Patwari Halqa No. 51, opposite Baaj Cinema Hall,
Murar, Pargana and District Gwalior, is owned and possessed
by them. It is alleged that on 4th December, 1989 officers of
the respondent-defendants entered upon the suit property with
the intent to remove the wire fencing erected thereon, the two
shops constructed by the plaintiffs, as well as the standing
crops on the said land.
3.2. In this backdrop, the appellant-plaintiffs instituted a civil suit,
being Civil Suit No. 55A of 19895, on 5th December, 1989 before
the Civil Court, seeking a declaration of title and a decree of
permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering
with the suit property. The appellant-plaintiffs asserted that the
suit property constituted their ancestral property and that their
forefathers had been in continuous ownership and possession
thereof for the preceding fifty years.
2 Hereinafter, referred to as “Civil Court”.
3 Hereinafter, referred to as “appellant-plaintiffs”.
4 Hereinafter, referred to as “respondent-defendants”.
5 Re-numbered later as “5-A of 1990”.
[2026] 3 S.C.R. 281
Gobind Singh and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors.
3.3. The Trial Court, vide judgment dated 26th March, 1996, decreed
the suit, holding that the title, ownership and possession of
the suit property vested in the appellant-plaintiffs, and that the
respondent-defendants had failed to establish any title thereto.
3.4. Aggrieved by the said decree, the respondent-defendants
preferred first appeal before the High Court. During the pendency
of the appeal, the appellant-plaintiffs filed an application under
Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 19086, seeking
to place on record certified copies of the General Land Register
maintained by the respondent-defendants. It was the case of the
appellant-plaintiffs that the said documents would demonstrate
that the suit property stood recorded as private land.
3.5. The High Court, vide judgment dated 12th August, 2009, allowed
the appeal preferred by the respondent-defendants, holding
that the appellant-plaintiffs had claimed perfection of title on
the basis of a decree passed in an earlier suit to which the
respondent-defendants were not parties.
3.6. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant-plaintiffs instituted a review
petition before the High Court primarily on the ground that the
application for additional evidence had not been decided. The
High Court, however, by judgment dated 15th March, 2011,
dismissed not only the review petition but also the application
for additional evidence and affirmed the judgment rendered in
the first appeal, while imposing costs of Rs.2,000/-.
4. It is in these circumstances that the appellant-plaintiffs have
approached this Court.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PARTIES: -
5. Shri Anupam Lal Dass, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf
of the appellants, assailed the judgments passed by the High Court
and advanced the following submissions: -
5.1. That the High Court acted contrary to law in proceeding to
decide the appeal on merits without first adjudicating upon the
application filed by the appellant-plaintiffs under Order XLI Rule
27 of CPC for leading additional evidence.
6 For short, “CPC”.
282 [2026] 3 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
5.2. That the predecessors-in-interest of the appellant-plaintiffs had
instituted a civil suit against the State seeking a declaration of
title, which was decreed by a court of competent jurisdiction,
and that the said judgment has since attained finality.
5.3. That the material on record clearly establishes that the appellant-
plaintiffs have remained in continuous and uninterrupted
possession of the suit property since the time of their forefathers,
and have, therefore, perfected title thereto by way of adverse
possession.
5.4. On these premises, the appellant-plaintiffs prayed that the
present appeals be allowed and that the impugned judgments
of the High Court be set aside.
6. Per contra, Shri V. Chitambresh, learned Senior Counsel appearing
for the respondents, strongly opposed the submissions advanced on
behalf of the appellants and advanced the following contentions: -
6.1. That the land comprising Morar Cantonment, within which the suit
property is situated, vested in the Union Government in the year
1953 upon transfer of ownership from the State Government.
6.2. That the ex parte decree passed in the earlier civil suit against
the State of MP instituted by the predecessors-in-interest of the
appellant-plaintiffs would not be binding on the Union, having
been rendered in the absence of the respondent-defendants,
who were neither impleaded nor afforded an opportunity of
being heard in the said suit.
6.3. The application for additional evidence was misplaced and
without any merit. It did not fall within the four corners of the
principles and parameters laid down in the Order XLI Rule 27
CPC. The same has been rightly rejected by the High Court
while deciding the review petition.
6.4. On these grounds, the respondent-defendants vehemently
urged that the present appeals be dismissed and the impugned
judgments of the High Court be affirmed.
ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION: -
7. We have heard the learned senior counsel appearing for the parties
and have carefully perused the material placed on record.
[2026] 3 S.C.R. 283
Gobind Singh and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors.
8. The limited question that arises for consideration is whether the
High Court’s omission to expressly adjudicate the application filed
under Order XLI Rule 27 of CPC while deciding the first appeal has
resulted in any manifest injustice or miscarriage of justice so as to
warrant interference by this Court.
9. In order to properly appreciate the controversy involved, it would be
apposite to advert to the reasoning adopted by the courts below.
While decreeing the suit instituted by the appellant-plaintiffs, the Trial
Court recorded the following findings: -
i. That it was an undisputed fact that, in respect of the suit property,
a decree dated 9th July, 1984, had already been passed by a
competent court in favour of the predecessors-in-interest of the
appellant-plaintiffs.
ii. That upon an appraisal of the material placed on record,
the appellant-plaintiffs were found to be in possession and
occupation of the suit property in the capacity of owners thereof.
iii. That the respondent-defendants failed to place on record any
documentary evidence to substantiate their claim of ownership
or possession over the suit property.
iv. That the objection raised by the respondent-defendants
regarding the alleged failure of the plaintiffs to disclose the
source of their title was rejected, as the documentary evidence on
record sufficiently established that the plaintiffs held ownership
over the suit property and had been in continuous possession
and occupation thereof for a considerable length of time thus
consequently, the plaintiffs’ ownership stood proved.
10. When the said decree was assailed by the respondent-defendants
before the High Court by way of an appeal, the High Court, while
allowing the appeal, recorded the following findings: -
i. That the earlier suit instituted by the predecessors-in-interest of
the plaintiffs against the State of Madhya Pradesh was decreed
ex parte by the Civil Court, without the respondent–Union of
India having been impleaded as a party to the said proceedings.
It was not binding on the Union of India.
ii. That from the pleadings and evidence adduced in the present
suit, it emerged that the plaintiffs’ claim over the suit property
284 [2026] 3 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
was founded on adverse possession, predicated on their alleged
possession of the land since the time of their forefathers. Their
could not be any perfection of rights by adverse possession
against the State/Union howsoever long may be the possession.
iii. That the plaintiffs failed to discharge the burden of proving
ownership over the suit property, having neither produced any
documentary evidence nor examined any witness to establish
the point of time at which their forefathers came into possession
of the land and on what basis.
iv. That the plaintiffs had sought to claim perfection of title on the
basis of adverse possession in the earlier suit filed by their
predecessor and, by doing so, procured a decree of declaration
without impleading the respondent-defendants. Consequently,
the said decree was held to be not binding on the respondent-
defendants, and the plaintiffs were found not to have acquired
ownership in the eyes of law.
v. While deciding the review petition the application for additional
evidence was also dismissed as being without any merit.
11. In our considered view, the High Court has committed no error in
rendering the impugned judgments and, for the reasons that follow
hereinafter, we are not persuaded to interfere and are, accordingly,
inclined to dismiss the present appeals.
11.1. It is true that the High Court, while delivering the judgment
dated 12th August, 2009, did not advert to the application filed
by the appellant-plaintiffs under Order XLI Rule 27 of CPC.
However, when the said judgment was assailed by way of a
review petition, the appellant-plaintiffs specifically contended
that the judgment could not be sustained on account of the
High Court’s failure to consider the application seeking to
adduce additional evidence. The High Court, by its subsequent
judgment dated 15th March, 2009, dismissed the review petition
and, in the process, also rejected the application filed under
Order XLI Rule 27 of CPC as being without any merit.
11.2. In order to properly appreciate the controversy involved, it is
necessary to first advert to the statutory provision applicable to
the case at hand. Order XLI Rule 27 of CPC reads as follows: -
[2026] 3 S.C.R. 285
Gobind Singh and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors.
“27. Production of additional evidence in Appellate
Court.–
(1) The parties to an appeal shall not be entitled
to produce additional evidence, whether oral or
documentary, in the Appellate Court. But if –
(a) . . .
(aa) the party seeking to produce additional
evidence, establishes that notwithstanding
the exercise of due diligence, such evidence
was not within his knowledge or could
not, after the exercise of due diligence, be
produced by him at the time when the decree
appealed against was passed, or
(b) . . .
the Appellate Court may allow such evidence
or document to be produced, or witness to be
examined.
(2) Wherever additional evidence is allowed to be
produced by an Appellate Court, the Court shall
record the reason for its admission.”
(emphasis supplied)
11.3. Rule 27, being couched in negative terms, makes it abundantly
clear that parties to an appeal are not entitled to adduce
additional evidence, whether oral or documentary, save and
except in the circumstances expressly enumerated therein.
The provision contemplates only three eventualities in which
additional evidence may be permitted: first, where the court
which passed the decree has refused to admit evidence which
ought to have been admitted; second, where the party seeking
to adduce such evidence establishes that, notwithstanding
the exercise of due diligence, the evidence was not within its
knowledge or could not have been produced at the time when
the decree under appeal was passed; and third, where the
appellate court itself requires any document to be produced or
any witness to be examined in order to enable it to pronounce
judgment or for any other substantial cause.
286 [2026] 3 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
11.4. Accordingly, it is only upon satisfaction of any of the aforesaid
three contingencies that an application under Order XLI Rule 27
of CPC can be entertained. Sub-rule (2) of the said provision
further mandates that where the appellate court forms an
opinion that additional evidence is required to be admitted, it
must record the reasons for such admission. While elucidating
the scope and object of Order XLI Rule 27 of CPC, this Court,
in Union of India v. Ibrahim Uddin,7 undertook an exhaustive
analysis of the provision. The relevant extract is reproduced
hereinafter: -
“36. The general principle is that the appellate
court should not travel outside the record of
the lower court and cannot take any evidence
in appeal. However, as an exception, Order 41
Rule 27 CPC enables the appellate court to take
additional evidence in exceptional circumstances.
The appellate court may permit additional
evidence only and only if the conditions laid down
in this Rule are found to exist. The parties are
not entitled, as of right, to the admission of such
evidence. Thus, the provision does not apply,
when on the basis of the evidence on record,
the appellate court can pronounce a satisfactory
judgment. The matter is entirely within the discretion
of the court and is to be used sparingly. Such a
discretion is only a judicial discretion circumscribed
by the limitation specified in the Rule itself.
...
38. Under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC, the appellate
court has the power to allow a document to be
produced and a witness to be examined. But the
requirement of the said court must be limited
to those cases where it found it necessary to
obtain such evidence for enabling it to pronounce
judgment. This provision does not entitle the
appellate court to let in fresh evidence at the
7 (2012) 8 SCC 148
[2026] 3 S.C.R. 287
Gobind Singh and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors.
appellate stage where even without such evidence
it can pronounce judgment in a case. It does not
entitle the appellate court to let in fresh evidence
only for the purpose of pronouncing judgment
in a particular way. In other words, it is only
for removing a lacuna in the evidence that the
appellate court is empowered to admit additional
evidence.
...
41. The words “for any other substantial cause”
must be read with the word “requires” in the
beginning of the sentence, so that it is only where,
for any other substantial cause, the appellate
court requires additional evidence, that this Rule
will apply e.g. when evidence has been taken by
the lower court so imperfectly that the appellate
court cannot pass a satisfactory judgment.”
(emphasis supplied)
Thus, a holistic reading of the aforesaid decision makes it
clear that the appellate court’s inquiry, while considering an
application for leading additional evidence, is confined to
examining whether such evidence is necessary to remove
a lacuna in the case. More importantly, the appellate court
may permit additional evidence only upon being satisfied that
the conditions expressly stipulated under Order XLI Rule 27
of CPC are fulfilled. The parties do not possess any vested
or automatic right to seek admission of additional evidence
at the appellate stage. Consequently, the provision has no
application where the appellate court is in a position to render
a satisfactory and reasoned judgment on the basis of the
evidence already available on record.
11.5. In State of Karnataka v. K.C. Subramanya,8 the appellants
therein had moved an application before the appellate court
under Order XLI Rule 27 of CPC seeking leave to produce a
8 (2014) 13 SCC 468
288 [2026] 3 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
map of the area to establish that the disputed land constituted
a public road. This Court, while affirming the High Court’s
decision to reject the said application, held as follows: -
“4. . . .
On perusal of this provision, it is unambiguously
clear that the party can seek liberty to produce
additional evidence at the appellate stage, but
the same can be permitted only if the evidence
sought to be produced could not be produced
at the stage of trial in spite of exercise of due
diligence and that the evidence could not be
produced as it was not within his knowledge and
hence was fit to be produced by the appellant
before the appellate forum.
5. It is thus clear that there are conditions
precedent before allowing a party to adduce
additional evidence at the stage of appeal, which
specifically incorporates conditions to the effect
that the party in spite of due diligence could not
produce the evidence and the same cannot be
allowed to be done at his leisure or sweet will.”
(emphasis supplied)
This Court thus categorically held that unless the requirements
stipulated under Order XLI Rule 27 of CPC are strictly satisfied,
a party cannot be permitted to adduce additional evidence at
the appellate stage. Such permission cannot be granted as a
matter of course, nor can additional evidence be introduced
at the whim or convenience of a litigating party.
11.6. Where the appellate court permits additional evidence to be
adduced, Order XLI Rule 27(2) of CPC casts a mandatory
obligation upon the court to record the reasons for such
admission. In Ibrahim Uddin (supra), this Court elucidated
the rationale underlying the requirement of recording reasons
in the following terms: -
“42. Whenever the appellate court admits additional
evidence it should record its reasons for doing so (sub-
[2026] 3 S.C.R. 289
Gobind Singh and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors.
rule (2)). It is a salutary provision which operates as
a check against a too easy reception of evidence at
a late stage of litigation and the statement of reasons
may inspire confidence and disarm objection. Another
reason of this requirement is that, where a further
appeal lies from the decision, the record of reasons
will be useful and necessary for the court of further
appeal to see, if the discretion under this Rule has
been properly exercised by the court below. The
omission to record the reasons must, therefore, be
treated as a serious defect. But this provision is only
directory and not mandatory, if the reception of such
evidence can be justified under the Rule.”
11.7. The procedural framework under Order XLI of CPC makes it
abundantly clear that an appeal is ordinarily to be decided on
the evidence adduced before the Trial Court. The Appellate
Court is not expected to embark upon a fresh fact-finding
exercise or permit production of additional evidence as a
matter of routine. Where the Appellate Court is satisfied that
the material already available on record is sufficient to enable
it to pronounce judgment, it is well within its jurisdiction to
confine its consideration to the evidence forming part of the
record of the courts below.
11.8. In the present case, the High Court, upon an examination of
the evidence adduced by the parties, proceeded to analyse
the decree passed in the earlier civil suit instituted by the
predecessors-in-interest of the appellant-plaintiffs. The High
Court observed that the said decree was not binding upon the
respondent-defendants, as they had not been impleaded as
parties to those proceedings. Consequently, no legal sanctity
could be attached to any subsequent entries made in the
revenue records on the strength of the said decree, including
the mutation of the plaintiffs’ names therein.
11.9. Once the said finding recorded by the Trial Court was set
aside, whereby the entire claim of ownership of the appellant-
plaintiffs rested upon the earlier decree and the consequent
entries in the revenue records, the onus squarely shifted upon
the appellant-plaintiffs to independently establish their title to
the suit property.
290 [2026] 3 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
11.10. The appellant-plaintiffs were, from the outset, fully aware
that the respondent-defendants had not been impleaded as
parties in the earlier civil suit instituted by their predecessors.
Having founded their claim upon a decree which was non-
est insofar as the respondent-defendants were concerned,
it was impermissible for the appellant-plaintiffs to seek to
introduce additional evidence at the appellate stage to cure
the inherent defects in their case. The present suit being one
for declaration of title, it was incumbent upon the appellant-
plaintiffs, if they indeed possessed a valid title, to adduce
their best and complete evidence at the stage of trial before
the court of first instance, where such evidence could have
been produced as a matter of right.
11.11. Further, even at the stage of the earlier suit instituted by
the predecessors-in-interest of the appellant-plaintiffs, their
consistent case was one of lawful title to the suit property.
No plea of adverse possession was ever raised against the
respondent-defendants. The appellants wish to rely upon
the additional evidence, namely, the entries in the General
Land Register maintained by the respondent-defendants to
show that the suit property is recorded as private land. Such
an endeavour, at the appellate stage and in the absence of
foundational pleadings, is wholly impermissible in law. Mere
recording of the land in suit as private land in the GLR does
not in any manner benefit the appellants claim of ownership.
11.12. Once the appellant-plaintiffs asserted that they derived
valid title to the suit property through their forefathers, the
burden lay squarely upon them to substantiate such claim
by producing cogent title deeds in support thereof. However,
no such documentary evidence was forthcoming.
11.13. On the other hand, the consistent stand of the respondent-
defendants from the inception has been that the appellant-
plaintiffs are rank trespassers and encroachers upon the suit
property. The respondent-defendants have specifically denied
the assertion that the appellant-plaintiffs or their predecessors
had been in enjoyment of the suit property for the preceding
fifty years prior to the institution of the suit.
[2026] 3 S.C.R. 291
Gobind Singh and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors.
11.14. Further, the respondent-defendants have traced their title
to the decision of the Union of India dated 17th July, 1953,
pursuant to which the suit land, along with other immovable
properties, vested in the respondent-defendants in terms of
title, ownership and possession. This assertion stands fortified
by the Gazette Notification dated 4th November, 1954, issued
by the erstwhile State of Madhya Bharat, which also recognises
that the suit land and other properties with title, ownership
and possession vested in the respondent-defendants.
11.15. The above discussion will also reflect that even if the additional
evidence in the form of GLR is accepted, the same will have
no impact on the findings returned by the High Court. The
application for additional evidence was thus rightly rejected
by the High Court.
11.16. Before parting, we deem it appropriate to record our
disapproval of the unscrupulous litigants such as appellant-
plaintiffs and their predecessors and the manner in which
they have conducted themselves. The material on record
indicates that the earlier suit instituted by the predecessors-
in-interest of the appellant-plaintiffs culminated in a decree
passed without impleading the respondent-defendants, who
were the lawful owners of the suit property. The attempt
to secure a decree behind the back of the true owner is a
circumstance that cannot be lightly brushed aside. It is also
not without significance that appellant-plaintiff No. 1, Govind
Singh, was employed in the office of the Commissioner at the
relevant time. The proximity of events, namely, the passing
of an ex-parte decree followed by the expeditious mutation
of revenue entries in favour of the appellant-plaintiffs, casts
a shadow over the bona fides of the proceedings.
11.17. In such a backdrop, when the appellant-plaintiffs themselves
asserted title on the basis of long and continuous possession
through their predecessors, the subsequent attempt to
introduce additional evidence at the appellate stage assumes
little legal significance. Once the trial had concluded and
the decree was under challenge in appeal, the appellants
could not be permitted to fill the gaps in their case by
seeking to adduce further material to fortify a claim that was
fundamentally flawed.
292 [2026] 3 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
12. For the foregoing reasons, we find no infirmity in the judgments
rendered by the High Court.
13. Accordingly, the judgments dated 12th August, 2009, in First Appeal
No. 80 of 1996 and 15th March, 2011, in Review Petition No. 300 of
2009 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Gwalior are
hereby affirmed.
14. Consequently, the present appeals stand dismissed.
15. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
Result of the case: Appeals dismissed.
†
Headnotes prepared by: Ankit Gyan
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "Order XLI Rule 27 CPC"Sign in to search