2022 (3) TMI 1490 - SC - Indian Laws

Acquisition of land of the original land owner vide notification dated 01.10.1980 for public purpose - non-satisfaction of requirement of Order 41 Rule 27 read with Section 96 of the CPC - appellate jurisdiction - HELD THAT - It is required to be noted that before the Reference Court as well as before the High Court, the only evidence produced on record was the sale deed dated 29.12.1987 which was rejected from being considered. Hence, as such, there was no other evidence/material on record to arrive at a fair market value for the acquired land. Therefore, before the High Court, the appellant filed an application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC for additional evidence to bring on record the sale deeds and certified copy of the judgment and award passed by the Reference Court which, according to the appellant, would have a direct bearing on the determination of the fair market value of the acquired land. The High Court has rejected the said application by observing that the application does not satisfy the requirement of Order 41 Rule 27 read with Section 96 of the CPC. It is true that 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. It may also be true that the appellate court may permit additional evidence if the conditions laid down in this Rule are found to exist and the parties are not entitled, as of right, to the admission of such evidence. However, at the same time, where the additional evidence sought to be adduced removes the cloud of doubt over the case and the evidence has a direct and important bearing on the main issue in the suit and interest of justice clearly renders it imperative that it may be allowed to be permitted on record, such application may be allowed. The High Court ought to have allowed the application for additional evidence. However, at the same time, even after permitting to adduce the additional evidence, the applicant has to prove the existence, authenticity and genuineness of the documents including contents thereof, in accordance with law and for the aforesaid purpose, the matter is to be remanded to the Reference Court. The present appeal is partly allowed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Dismissal of First Appeal by High Court.
2. Rejection of application for additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC.
3. Interpretation of the law regarding the admissibility of additional evidence by the appellate court.
4. Remand of the matter to the Reference Court for consideration of additional evidence.

Issue 1: Dismissal of First Appeal by High Court
The appellant, an original claimant, was dissatisfied with the High Court's dismissal of the First Appeal (No. 44/2007) challenging the compensation awarded for land acquisition. The High Court rejected the appeal, prompting the appellant to file the present appeal before the Supreme Court.

Issue 2: Rejection of Application for Additional Evidence
The appellant sought to introduce additional evidence, including sale deeds and a judgment and award from related cases, to determine the fair market value of the acquired land. The High Court dismissed the application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC, stating it did not meet the legal requirements. The appellant argued that the additional evidence was crucial for determining fair compensation, as no other material was available on record for this purpose.

Issue 3: Interpretation of the Law on Admissibility of Additional Evidence
The Supreme Court analyzed the legal principles governing the admission of additional evidence by appellate courts. While generally, appellate courts should not consider evidence outside the lower court's record, exceptions exist under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC. The Court cited precedent to emphasize that additional evidence should be allowed if it removes doubt, is crucial to the main issue, and serves the interest of justice. The Court highlighted that the appellate court's decision to admit additional evidence hinges on whether it is necessary for judgment or other substantial reasons.

Issue 4: Remand of the Matter to the Reference Court
In light of the above considerations, the Supreme Court partly allowed the appeal, quashing the High Court's rejection of the application for additional evidence. The Court directed the appellant to prove the authenticity and contents of the additional documents before the Reference Court. The matter was remanded to the Reference Court for a fresh decision on the reference case, emphasizing that the Reference Court should assess the additional evidence in accordance with the law and on its merits.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court partially allowed the appeal, remanding the case for the Reference Court's reconsideration with the newly permitted additional evidence. The Court clarified the requirements for admitting additional evidence and stressed the need for the appellant to establish the authenticity and contents of the documents before the Reference Court.