Common Judgment:

1. The Appeal in A.S.No.1725 of 2001 has been filed, under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure [for short „the C.P.C.‟], by the Appellants/Defendant Nos.1, 5, 6, 8 and 10 to 13, challenging the Decree and Common Judgment dated 31.03.2001 in O.S.No.75 of 1995 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Yellamanchili [for short „the trial Court‟].

2. The Appeal in A.S.No.1726 of 2001 has been filed, under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure [for short „the C.P.C.‟], by the Appellants/Defendant Nos.5 to 7, challenging the Decree and Common Judgment dated 31.03.2001 in O.S.No.76 of 1995 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Yellamanchili [for short „the trial Court‟].

3. The Appeal in A.S.No.1727 of 2001 has been filed, under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure [for short „the C.P.C.‟], by the Appellant/Defendant No.1, challenging the Decree and Common Judgment dated 31.03.2001 in O.S.No.77 of 1995 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Yellamanchili [for short „the trial Court‟].

4. Originally, the trial Court clubbed all the aforesaid three suits in O.S.No.75, 76 and 77 of 1995, common evidence was recorded and a common judgment was passed by the trial Court. Since all the three appeals are filed against one common judgment, they are clubbed together and a common judgment is being pronounced in all these three appeals.

5. Both the parties in these Appeals will be referred to as they are arrayed before the trial Court.

6. The plaintiff/A.P. State Waqf Board, Hyderabad, Rep. by its Secretary, filed the suits in O.S.Nos.75, 76 and 77 of 1995, with a specific prayer to declare the two permanent lease deeds, dated 06.07.1887, executed by the Muslim Community of Yellamanchili namely., Lala Ahamad and nine others in favour of one Janapareddy Ramaswamy Naidu, the ancestor of the defendant Nos.2 to 4 in respect of the suit property as illegal, void and without any authority and that, therefore, the defendant No.1 did not get any right or title over the suit property along with consequential relief of delivery of possession with future profits and costs.

7. The defendant Nos.2 to 4 in O.S.Nos.75, 76 and 77 of 1995 remained ex- parte before the trial Court, the defendant No.7 in O.S.No.75 of 1995 and the defendant No.1 in O.S.No.76 of 1995, died during the pendency of the suits.

8. The brief averments in the plaint in O.S.Nos.75, 76 and 77 of 1995, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Yellamanchili are as under:

                  a) The plaintiff-Waqf Board is vested with the power to administer, control and manage all Waqf properties situated in the State of Andhra Pradesh and the plaint schedule property admeasuring Ac.2.35 cents, which was denoted by the old survey No.346 correlating to the new survey No.388/1 of Yellamanchili Village of Visakhapatnam District is a Waqf property and it is locally known as “IDGAH SUNNY”, which is endowed with the object to maintain the Edgah situated at Yellamanchili and the same was identified as a Waqf property by the Commissioner of Waqfs, who is appointed for identifying all the Waqf properties available in the State of Andhra Pradesh. The plaintiff pleaded that the income derived from the fruit bearing trees was used for the maintenance of the said Edgah. While so, some Muslims, who are the residents of Yellamanchili, have executed two permanent lease deeds on 06.07.1887 in favour of one Janapareddy Ramaswamy Naidu, S/o Swamy Naidu, for a meagre amount of Rs.10/- per annum under each of the lease deeds for letting out the suit property and then inducted the lessee Ramaswamy Naidu into the possession of the suit property.

                  b) The plaintiff pleaded that the said Janapareddy Ramaswamy Naidu has continued in the possession till his death, and after his demise, his son Mangapathirao Naidu continued in the possession, and thereafter his grandson by name Janapareddy Ramakrishnarao Naidu, enjoyed the suit property by raising dry crops, and gradually they have sub-let some portions of the plaint schedule property to others not only for raising up of crops, but also for construction of houses against which the Muslims, who are residing at Yellamanchili strongly objected to the said leases and sub-leases, therefore, in connection with the said objection, there is litigation between the Muslims and the said Janapareddy Family. The plaintiff further pleaded that Janapareddy Ramakrishnarao Naidu, S/o Mangapathirao Naidu, has filed an application before the Settlement Officer at Visakhapatnam, during the month of December, 1979 claiming for a ryotwari patta in his favour for the suit property, and the Settlement Officer has granted a ryotwari patta in his favour on 29.04.1981, and in the said application, it was clearly mentioned that the schedule property originaly belonged to the Mohammedans of Yellamanchili and the same was given to Janapareddy Ramaswamy Naidu on a permanent lease, and after his death, his daughter Janapareddy Rajamani (defendant No.2), her sons Madhavarao and Laxminarayana Kumar (defendant Nos.3 and 4), have executed three different sale deeds on 25.10.1991, wherein one in favour of the defendant No.1 and the other two were executed in favour of Vutukuti Venkateswararao and Kotaru Srinivasarao, in respect of the suit property selling as an undivided 1/3rd share in the suit property to each of them, as such, the defendant No.1 obtained the sale deed from the defendant Nos.2 to 4 in respect of an undivided 1/3rd share in the plaint schedule property on 25.10.1991.

                  c) The plaintiff further pleaded that the original lessee did not get any valid right and title for the plaint schedule property, much less the defendant Nos.2 to 4, and the very lease deeds, which were executed by some of the Muslims of Yellamanchili, are void and Void-Ab-Initio, because a Mutavalli alone has power to lease out the Waqf property that too not for longer periods, therefore, the sale deed dated 25.10.1991 said to have been executed by the defendant Nos.2 to 4 in favour of the defendant No.1 is invalid and unenforceable, and that the plaintiff-Waqf Board has filed the suit for recovery of suit property, by the custodian of all the Waqf properties is entitled to recover the properties given to others under invalid documents. Hence, the suit.

9. The brief averments in the written statements filed by the contested defendants in O.S.Nos.75, 76 and 77 of 1995, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Yellamanchili are as follows:

                  The defendant No.1 is not aware of the report, dated 20.02.1956, said to have been submitted by the Waqf Commissioner to confirm the suit property as a Waqf property, and even if there is any such report, the same does not bind him. He pleaded that some Muslims of Yellamanchili have executed two permanent lease deeds in favour of one Janapareddy Ramaswamy Naidu on 06.07.1887 in respect of the suit property and ever since from the date of execution of the said registered lease deeds, Janapareddy Family was in continuous and uninterrupted possession and enjoyment of the suit property till the date of abolition of the erstwhile Vijayanagaram Estate during the year 1949, and the suit property which was situated in the erstwhile Vijayanagaram Estate was wrongly classified as “Hill Poramboke”, therefore, Janapareddy Ramakrishnarao Naidu, who is the grandson of Ramaswamy Naidu, filed an application under Section 11-A of the Estate Abolition Act, claiming for a ryotwari patta in respect of the plaint schedule property, and after elaborate enquiry, a ryotwari patta was issued in favour of Janapareddy Ramakrishnarao Naidu by the concerned Settlement Officer. Thereafter, the then Tahsildar, Yellamanchili, has preferred a revision before the Director of Survey, Settlement and Land Records and the same was not allowed, aggrieved thereby, the Tahsildar, Yellamanchili, has preferred another revision before the Commissioner of Survey, Settlement and Land Records at Hyderabad, which was also dismissed. Therefore, the leases granted in favour of Janapareddy Family were approved and recognized by the Government, and that the Janapareddy people became the absolute owners of the plaint schedule property as per the provisions of the Estate Abolition Act.

                  The defendant No.1 further pleaded that they have sub-let some portions of the suit property for construction of houses, and with regard to the same, there was no protest from the Muslim community. They further pleaded that the trustees of the mosque at Yellamanchili have filed a suit in O.S.No.144 of 1947 on the file of the District Munsif, Yellamanchili, against late Ramakrishnarao Naidu, for recovery of arrears of rent and also for his eviction from the suit property and the same was dismissed. He further pleaded that the present suit filed by the plaintiff-Waqf Board is not maintainable, and the said suit is barred by time. It is further pleaded that Janapareddy Ramakrishnarao Naidu and his heirs, who are none other than the defendant Nos.2 to 4, have alienated the plaint schedule property to the defendant No.1 under the registered sale deed, dated 25.10.1991 and also inducted him into possession of the same, and the family of Janapareddy people has perfected its title to the suit property by adverse possession. The defendant No.1 being an alienee of the said family, has acquired valid right, title and interest in the plaint schedule property, and the right of the plaintiff-Waqf Board in the suit property was already extinguished long back. Hence, it is prayed to dismiss the suit.

                  The defendant Nos.5, 6 and 8 to 14 pleaded that the plaintiff has got issued notices to all of them under Section 54(1) of the Waqf Act, 1955, and immediately after receipt of those notices, they have sent their respective replies stating that they have purchased a part of the suit property from Janapareddy Ramakrishnarao Naidu during the year 1978, and that thereby they acquired title and possession over the suit property, and ever since, they have been enjoying their part of the suit property. Thereafter, the said property was divided among the brothers of Kotaru Appalraju, Kotaru Rambabu, Kotaru Narayanarao, and Kotaru Nookinaidu, as such, prayed to dismiss the suit.

10. Based on the above pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues:

                  1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the declaration and also reliefs as prayed for?

                  2) Whether the suit is barred by limitation?

                  3) Whether the suit is bad on the principles of res judicata?

                  4) Whether the defendants are perfected the title by adverse possession?

                  5) Whether this Court has no jurisdiction? and

                  6) To what relief?

                  The trial Court had also framed the following additional issues in O.S.No.75 of 1995:

                  1) Whether the report dated 20.02.1956 submitted by the Waqf Commissioner is not binding on the defendants?

                  2) Whether the property covered by the suit is a Waqf property? If so, whether it was meant for maintaining the Muslim Idgah?

                  3) Whether the ryotwari patta said to have issued in favour of Janapareddi people is true, valid and binding on the Waqf-Board?

                  4) Whether the building housed by the Bank of Baroda is not a Waqf property?

                  5) Whether the decrees and judgments rendered in O.S.Nos.74/1888 and 16/1892 on the file of the District Munsif, Yellamanchili are binding on the plaintiff-board?

                  6) Whether the decree and judgment rendered in O.S.No.144/1947 on the file of the District Munsif, Yellamanchili are binding on the Waqf-Board?

                  7) Whether the proceedings covered by the Writ Petition No.1737/1987, dated 5-8-1987 are binding on the plaintiff Waqf Board?

                  8) Whether the sale deed, dated 25.10.1991 is true, valid and binding on the Waqf Board?

                  9) Whether the lease deed, dated 6-7-1887 is void?

                  10) Whether the notices, dated 21.10.1998, issued to defendant No.5 to defendant No.14 by the plaintiff-Waqf Board are bereft of authority?

                  11) Whether the property claimed by defendant No.5 to defendant No.14 does not belong to the plaintiff-Waqf Board?

11. During the course of trial in the trial Court, on behalf of the plaintiff in O.S.Nos.75, 76 and 77 of 1995, P.W.1 and P.W.2 were examined and Ex.A-1 to Ex.A-8 were marked. On behalf of the Defendants in O.S.Nos.75, 76 and 77 of 1995, D.W.1 to D.W.4 were examined and Ex.B-1 to Ex.B-51 were marked. Ex.X-1 was also marked.

12. After completion of the trial and hearing the arguments of both sides the trial Court decreed the suits vide its common judgment, dated 31.03.2001, against which the appeal in A.S.No.1725 of 2001 is preferred by the defendant Nos.1, 5, 6, 8 and 10 to 13 in O.S.No.75 of 1995, A.S.No.1726 of 2001 is preferred by the defendant Nos.5 to 7 in O.S.No.76 of 1995 and A.S.No.1727 of 2001 is preferred by the d1efendant No.1 in O.S.No.77 of 1995, questioning the common Judgment and decree passed by the trial Court.

13. Heard Sri Yogesh Kumar Heroor, learned counsel for the appellants, Sri P.Veera Reddy, learned Senior Counsel, representing Sri Shaik Khaja Basha, learned counsel for the respondents and Sri A.S.C.Bose, learned counsel for the respondents.

14. Now in deciding the present first appeals, the points that arise for determination are as follows:

                  1. Whether the petitioners/defendants (appellants in the present appeal proceedings) in I.A.No.1 of 2023 in A.S.No.1725 of 2001 and the petitioner/plaintiff (respondent in the present appeal proceedings) in I.A.No.1 of 2025 in A.S.No.1725 of 2001, A.S.No.1726 of 2001 and A.S.No.1727 of 2001 are entitled to the relief to receive additional evidence as sought for?

                  2. Whether the trial Court is justified in decreeing the suit filed by the plaintiff?

15. Point No.1:

                  Whether the petitioners/defendants (appellants in the present appeal proceedings) in I.A.No.1 of 2023 in A.S.No.1725 of 2001 and the petitioner/plaintiff (respondent in the present appeal proceedings) in I.A.No.1 of 2025 in A.S.No.1725 of 2001, A.S.No.1726 of 2001 and A.S.No.1727 of 2001 are entitled to the relief to receive additional evidence as sought for?

                  The petitioners, who are the appellants in appeal proceedings, filed I.A.No.1 of 2023, during the pendency of the appeal proceedings, with a prayer to receive additional evidence. Though the application is filed under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the provision of law applicable to receive the additional evidence during the appeal proceedings is under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

16. The brief averments in the affidavit of the petitioners in I.A.No.1 of 2023 is as follows:

                  The petitioners/appellants pleaded that certain original documents were not available, and they have filed a copy of the application for providing the records before the revenue authorities, but the same was not given. The petitioners pleaded that the copy of the Ryotwari patta was not provided by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Yellamanchili, and while clearing old records, the petitioners could only trace out the old files and some xerox copies of the said documents. The petitioners further pleaded that non-filing of the Ryotwari patta proceedings necessitated the trial Court to draw an adverse inference against the defendants, though the issuance of it was never disputed by the respondent No.1/plaintiff-Waqf Board. The petitioners further pleaded that the following documents i.e.,

                  1. Copy of the Proceedings of the settlement officer, Visakhapatnam, dated 29.04.1981,

                  2. Copy of the Proceedings of the Commissioner survey, settlement and land records, Hyderabad, dated 03.05.1982,

                  3. Copy of the order in Writ Petition bearing W.P.No.13562 of 1990, dated 19.09.1990,

                  4. Copy of the Proceedings of Mandal Revenue Office, vide Rc.No.371 of 1990, dated 08.10.1990,

                  5. Copy of the letter in Rc.No.371 of 1990, dated 22.10.1991,

                  6. Copy of the decree and judgment in O.S.No.114 of 1943, dated 21.07.1944, are crucial for deciding the present lis and for effective adjudication of the matter, and those may be permitted to be taken on record. As such, the petitioners are constrained to file the present interlocutory application.

17. The brief averments in the affidavit of the petitioner/plaintiff in I.A.No.1 of 2025 is as follows:

                  This interlocutory application is filed to bring on record the Gazette Notification published at Serial No.47, dated 30.11.1961. The petitioner/respondent No.1 pleaded that the suit was filed in the year 1996, and during the examination also the Inspector Auditor of Waqfs deposed that the Gazette Notification published at Serial No.47, dated 30.11.1961 was published. The petitioner/respondent No.1 further pleaded that the suit property is a Waqf property, and the Gazette Notification was published. During the proceedings in the original suit, the same was not brought on record, and it was inadvertently missed to file before the trial Court. The petitioner further pleaded that the Gazette Notification, which was published at Serial No.47, dated 30.11.1961, is a very crucial document to decide the lis in the present appeal, and as the appeal is a continuation of the suit, despite due diligence, to produce the same and due to unavoidable circumstances, it could not be produced at that relevant point of time, and as such, the petitioner is constrained to file the present interlocutory application.

18. In the present case at hand, both the parties in the suit proceedings want to produce additional evidence under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and they have filed petitions before this First Appellate Court to receive additional evidence. The main relief claimed in the suit proceedings is to declare the permanent lease deeds dated 06.07.1987, said to have been executed by the Muslim community of the Yellamanchili people viz., Lala Ahamad and nine others in respect of the plaint schedule property in favour of one Sri Janapareddy Ramaswamy Naidu, the ancestor of the defendant Nos.2 to 4, are without authority, illegal, Void-Ab-Initio, and for recovery of the possession of the plaint schedule properties. The relief sought by the plaintiff in all the three (03) suits is one and the same, and the issue involved in all the three (03) appeal proceedings is one and the same. The common issues are settled for trial, and common judgment has been pronounced by the trial Court in all the three (03) suits, therefore, all the three (03) appeal suits were head together and they are being disposed of by this Common Judgment.

19. The plaintiff, who succeeded in the suit proceedings, filed a petition to receive additional evidence under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The contention of the plaintiff is that the plaint schedule property is a Waqf, property and the Government of Andhra Pradesh issued a Gazette Notification on 30.11.1961, wherein the schedule property is noted as Waqf property in the said Gazette Notification and the Gazette Notification, reveals that the schedule property is a Waqf property. The plaintiff specifically pleaded that the suit property is a Waqf property, and during the evidence of P.W.1/Inspector Auditor of the Waqfs, admits in his evidence in cross- examination that there was a Gazette Notification in the year 1961, and it shows that the suit schedule property is a Waqf property. Therefore, the Gazette Notification is a very crucial document to decide the lis in the present appeal. As seen from the material available on record, the suit proceedings relate to the year 1996, and the Gazette Notification said to have been issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh is dated 30.11.1961, which is much prior to the institution of the suit before the trial Court. In a suit for recovery of possession of the immovable property, the said document, namely viz., the Gazette Notification said to have been issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh, dated 30-11-1961, is a very crucial document to decide the title of the parties. Moreover, it is a public document which is attested by the Assistant Secretary, A.P. State Waqf Board, Vijayawada.

20. Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, reads as under:

                  “Order 41 Rule 27 of Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - 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) the Court from whose decree the appeal is preferred has refused to admit evidence which ought to have been admitted, or

                  (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 requires any document to be produced or any witness to be examined to enable it to pronounce judgment, or for any other substantial cause, 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.”

21. Learned counsel for the appellants would contend that no Gazette Notification has been placed on record by the plaintiff during the trial proceedings before the trial Court. Learned counsel for the appellants would further contend that there is no documentary evidence to show that any such Gazette Notification exists or that the process of that notification was lawfully completed. He would further contend that the entire claim of the title is based on the survey report, the same is not only premature but also legally unsustainable in the absence of duly issued and produced Gazette Notification. He would further contend that the said Gazette Notification has evidentiary value and is essential to establish the legal character of the property as a Waqf. He would further contend that the claim that the suit property is a Waqf property is not supported by the statutory requirement of the Gazette Notification, and hence, it cannot be legally sustained. Therefore, it is evident that the said Gazette Notification dated 30.11.1961, which was issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh, is a very crucial document to decide the title dispute of the property to the parties in the present case.

22. It was contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that there is no specific pleading in the plaintiff asserting that the suit property was notified as a Waqf property under the provisions of the Act.

                  In a case of K.Venkataramiah vs A. Seetharama Reddy & Ors. (Manu/SC/0243/1963), wherein the Apex Court held as follows:

                  “….under Rule 27(1), the appellate court has the power to allow additional evidence not only if it requires such evidence "to enable it to pronounce judgment" but also for any other substantial cause. There may well be cases where even though the court finds that it is able to pronounce judgment on the state of the record as it is, and so, it cannot strictly say that it requires additional evidence 'to enable it to pronounce judgment, it still considers that in the interest of justice something which remains obscure should be filled up so that it can pronounce its judgment in a more satisfactory manner. Such a case will be one for allowing additional evidence for any other substantial cause under Rule 27(1) (b) of the Code. Such requirement of the Court is not likely to arise ordinarily unless some inherent lacuna or defect become apparent on an examination of the evidence. It may well be that the defect may be pointed out by a party, or that a party, may move the Court to supply the defect, but the requirement must be the requirement of the Court upon its appreciation of the evidence as it stands.”

23. It is true that the general principle is that the Appellate Court should not travel outside the record of the trial Court and cannot take any evidence in the appeal. However, as an exception, Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, enables the Appellate Court to take the additional evidence in exceptional circumstances. It may also be true that the Appellate Court may permit additional evidence, if the conditions laid down in the 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 the interest of justice clearly renders it imperative that it may be allowed to be permitted on record, such application may be allowed. Even, one of the circumstances in which the production of the additional evidence under  Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, by the Appellate Court is to be considered is, whether or not the Appellate Court requires the additional evidence so as to enable it to pronounce judgment or for any other substantial cause of like nature. It is well settled that the Appellate Court should receive a document as additional evidence to render fair justice between the parties.

24. It is well to remember that the Appellate Court has the power to allow the additional evidence, not only if it requires such evidence “to enable it to pronounce judgment”, but also for “any other substantial cause”. There may well be cases where even though the Court finds that it is able to pronounce the judgment on the state of record as it is, and so, it cannot strictly say that it requires additional evidence “to enable it to pronounce judgment”, it still considers that in the interest of justice something which remains obscure should be filled up so that it can pronounce judgment in a more satisfactory manner.

                  In the case at hand, “the receipt of the Gazette Notification as additional evidence only adds to the facts already on the record, which does not constitute a new cause of action and it does not also raise new issues”.

25. It is true that the general principle is that the Appellate Court should not travel outside the record of the trial Court and cannot take any evidence in the appeal. However, as an exception, Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, enables the Appellate Court to take the additional evidence in exceptional circumstances. The document now filed by the plaintiff to receive as additional evidence is the attested Gazette Notification issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh dated 30.11.1961, much prior to the institution of the suit proceedings. As stated supra, the Gazette Notification dated 30.11.1961, is a very crucial document to decide the title of the parties in a title suit. Moreover, it is also the specific contention of the defendant that on the basis of the report of the Advocate Commissioner, the title of the plaintiff cannot be decided in the absence of the Gazette Notification. Therefore, if the said Gazette Notification dated 30.11.1961, is received as an additional evidence, no prejudice will be caused to the other party, and the other party will get an opportunity to cross-examine the witness of the plaintiff on the said document.

26. It is also well settled that the application filed by the petitioner/plaintiff to receive additional evidence by narrating the reasons cannot be dismissed on the pretext that the party produced the document with a delay. As noticed supra, if the said Gazette Notification is received as additional evidence, the dispute between both the parties will be settled once for all, because the respondent/defendant also pleaded that the said notification is a crucial document, which is not filed by the plaintiff before the trial Court. For the aforesaid reasons, I.A.No.1 of 2025 in all the three (03) appeal suits is allowed. Therefore, it is desirable to receive the said attested copy of the Gazette Notification dated 30.11.1961, as additional evidence. With these above observations, I.A.No.1 of 2025 in A.S.Nos.1725, 1726 and 1727 of 2001 is allowed.

27. The defendants also filed I.A.No.1 of 2023 in A.S.No.1725 of 2001 to receive: 1) Copy of the Proceedings of the settlement officer, Visakhapatnam, dated 29.04.1981, 2) Copy of the Proceedings of the Commissioner survey, settlement and land records, Hyderabad, dated 03.05.1982, 3) Copy of the order in Writ Petition bearing W.P.No.13562 of 1990, dated 19.09.1990, 4) Copy of the Proceedings of Mandal Revenue Office, vide Rc.No.371 of 1990, dated 08.10.1990, 5) Copy of the letter in Rc.No.371 of 1990, dated 22.10.1991, 6) Copy of the decree and judgment in O.S.No.114 of 1943, dated 21.07.1944, as additional evidence. All the above copies of the documents are public documents, relates to much prior to the institution of the suit proceedings before the trial Court. The petitioners herein are the defendants in the suit proceedings, and the relief sought by the plaintiff in the suit proceedings is for recovery of the possession of the immovable property. All the aforesaid documents are dated much prior to the institution of the suit. In a nature of suit for possession, all the aforesaid documents filed by the petitioners/defendants are crucial to decide the lis in the present appeal.

28. The petitioners herein who are the defendants in the suit proceedings filed the present application by narrating the reasons for not filing the copies of the documents, which are now sought to be received as additional evidence before the trial Court. As stated supra, the application filed by the petitioners/defendants by narrating the reasons cannot be dismissed on the pretext that the party produced the documents with a delay as noticed supra. If the copies of the documents produced by the petitioners/defendants are received as additional evidence, the dispute between both the parties will be settled once for all. In the case at hand, the plaintiff also filed a petition vide I.A.No.1 of 2025, to receive the Gazette Notification as additional evidence. As noticed supra, all the copies of the documents now filed by the defendants to be received as additional evidence relate to much prior to the institution of the suit, moreover, all are public documents. If the said documents are received as additional evidence, no prejudice will be caused to the plaintiff and the plaintiff will get a right to cross-examine the witness of the defendant on the aforesaid documents to be received as additional evidence.

29. For the aforesaid reasons, I.A.No.1 of 2023 In A.S.No.1725 of 2001 is allowed to receive 1) Copy of the Proceedings of the settlement officer, Visakhapatnam, dated 29.04.1981, 2) Copy of the Proceedings of the Commissioner survey, settlement and land records, Hyderabad, dated 03.05.1982, 3) Copy of the order in Writ Petition bearing W.P.No.13562 of 1990, dated 19.09.1990, 4) Copy of the Proceedings of Mandal Revenue Office, vide Rc.No.371 of 1990, dated 08.10.1990, 5) Copy of the letter in Rc.No.371 of 1990, dated 22.10.1991, 6) Copy of the decree and judgment in O.S.No.114 of 1943, dated 21.07.1944, as additional evidence, subject to proof and relevancy. Both the parties would have to not only prove the existence, authenticity and genuineness of the said documents, but also the contents thereof, in accordance with law.

                  With the above observations, Point No.1 is answered accordingly.

30. Point No.2:-

                  Whether the trial Court is justified in decreeing the suit filed by the plaintiff?

                  The relief sought by the plaintiff in the suit proceedings is to declare the permanent lease deeds dated 06.07.1887, executed by the Muslim community of Yellamanchili viz., Lala Ahmed and nine others in respect of the plaint schedule property in favour of Sri Janapareddy Ramaswamy Naidu, ancestor of the defendant Nos.2 to 4 is without authority, illegal and Void-Ab-Initio and also for recovery of possession of the suit schedule property. The appellant contended that the suit schedule property is not a Waqf property and the plaintiff contended that the suit schedule property is a Waqf property, after conducting survey by the Survey Commissioner; the Government published a Gazette on 30.11.1961. As stated supra, the Gazette Notification is filed by the plaintiff before this Appellate Court along with the petition, to receive additional evidence under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, likewise the defendants also filed a petition to receive additional evidence viz.,

                  1) Copy of the Proceedings of the settlement officer, Visakhapatnam, dated 29.04.1981, 2) Copy of the Proceedings of the Commissioner survey, settlement and land records, Hyderabad, dated 03.05.1982, 3) Copy of the order in Writ Petition bearing W.P.No.13562 of 1990, dated 19.09.1990, 4) Copy of the Proceedings of Mandal Revenue Office, vide Rc.No.371 of 1990, dated 08.10.1990, 5) Copy of the letter in Rc.No.371 of 1990, dated 22.10.1991, 6) Copy of the decree and judgment in O.S.No.114 of 1943, dated 21.07.1944, all the documents are public documents and the appellants specifically pleaded that the schedule property is not a Waqf property. Therefore, it is evident that both the parties want to produce additional evidence in the first appeal proceedings before this Court and they have filed applications to receive additional evidence. This Court finds that the additional evidence is crucial evidence to decide the subject matter of the real dispute between both the parties.

31. Learned counsel for the appellants placed reliance on a judgment of this Court in Angara Mosque, rep. by its Mutavalli, Md.Madina Khan, Angara, Ramachandrapuram Vs. Sreenivasa Rice Mill, West Ghandrika, rep. by its Partners and others(2025 (3) ALT 245 (S.B.)).

                  Learned counsel for the appellants also placed another reliance on a judgment of this Court in Ballisetti Hariprasad Vs. Putta Venkatesam and Ors.( Manu/AP/0254/2024).

                  Learned counsel for the respondent placed a reliance on a judgment of this Court in A.P.Waqf Board, Hyderabad, rep. by its Secretary Vs. Guri Nagi Reddy & another in S.A.Nos.178 and 179 of 1979, dated 13.11.1981.

                  The ratio laid down in the aforesaid case laws is not in dispute, but, in the case on hand, both the parties want to produce additional evidence and filed petitions by both sides to receive additional evidence in the first appeal proceedings. By narrating the reasons, this Court allowed those petitions; therefore this Court finds that an opportunity will be given to both the parties to produce additional evidence on the aforesaid documents as ordered supra. Therefore, it is desirable to give an opportunity to both the parties to adduce additional evidence on the documents produced by both the parties.

32. It is observed that the documents which are permitted to be brought on record by both parties as additional evidence have to be proved by both the applicants before the trial Court, in accordance with law and only thereafter and after proving the existence, authenticity and genuineness of the said documents including contents thereof, the same can be taken into consideration by the trial Court.

                  For the aforesaid purpose, all the three (03) matters are remanded to the trial Court, O.S.No.75 of 1995, O.S.No.76 of 1995 and O.S.No.77 of 1995, are ordered to be restored on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Yellamanchili. Consequently, the common judgment and decree passed by the trial Court in O.S.No.75 of 1995, O.S.No.76 of 1995 and O.S.No.77 of 1995, dated 31.03.2001, is also hereby set-aside.

33. In the result, A.S.Nos.1725, 1726, & 1727 of 2001 are allowed, I.A.No.1 of 2025 in A.S.Nos.1725, 1726, & 1727 of 2001 are allowed and I.A.No.1 of 2023 in A.S.No.1725 of 2001 is allowed and the matter is remanded to the trial Court, the documents which are now ordered to be received as additional evidence filed by both the parties before this Court shall be forwarded to the trial Court and the trial Court is directed to give an opportunity to both the parties to adduce additional evidence, if any, on the aforesaid documents produced by both the parties, and after hearing both sides, pass a judgment on merits, without being influenced by any of the findings recorded in its earlier judgment dated 31.03.2001. The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of four (04) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this common judgment. The trial Court is directed to decide the suits in accordance with law. The Registry is hereby instructed to transmit the entire record forthwith to the trial Court. There shall be no order as to costs.

                  As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the Appeals shall stand closed.