The Supreme Court observed that the evidence which was not a part of the pleadings couldn't be led in the trial. “There is no quarrel with the proposition of law that no evidence could be led beyond pleadings. It is not a case in which there was any error in the pleadings and the parties knowing their case fully well had led evidence to enable the Court to deal with that evidence. In the...
The Supreme Court observed that the evidence which was not a part of the pleadings couldn't be led in the trial.
“There is no quarrel with the proposition of law that no evidence could be led beyond pleadings. It is not a case in which there was any error in the pleadings and the parties knowing their case fully well had led evidence to enable the Court to deal with that evidence. In the case in hand, specific amendment in the pleadings was sought by the plaintiffs with reference to 1965 partition but the same was rejected. In such a situation, the evidence with reference to 1965 partition cannot be considered.”, the Bench Comprising Justices C.T. Ravikumar and Rajesh Bindal said.
The aforesaid observation came in the Judgment authored by Justice Rajesh Bindal while deciding a civil appeal preferred by the appellant/defendant against the decision of the High Court which had considered the evidence not pleaded in the pleadings by the plaintiff/respondent, moreover, the plaintiff's application seeking amendment to the suit to add the evidence was also rejected by the trial court, and the same wasn't even challenged by the plaintiff/respondent.
The plaintiff/respondent challenged the sale of the suit property by the appellant/defendant no.7 to defendant no.9 on the note that the 1965 partition didn't authorize the appellant to sell the suit property as he has no title over the suit property as per the 1965 partition.
The Supreme Court held that the High Court committed a grave error in placing reliance upon the partition allegedly effected in the year 1965, as it is not even the pleaded case of the plaintiffs in the suit that there was any partition of the family properties in the year 1965.
“As is evident from the judgment of the High Court, much reliance was placed upon the oral partition effected between the parties in the year 1965. In our opinion, the High Court committed a grave error in placing reliance upon the partition allegedly effected in the year 1965, in terms of which Schedule 'A' properties were allotted exclusively to the share of defendant No.1. The fact remains that it is not even the pleaded case of the plaintiffs in the suit that there was any partition of the family properties in the year 1965.”, the court observed.
“Quite late, the plaintiffs sought to amend the plaint seeking to raise pleadings regarding 1965 partition. The Trial Court, vide order dated 11.10.2006 rejected the application for amendment of the plaint. The aforesaid order was not challenged any further. Meaning thereby, the same attained finality as far as the case sought to be set up by the plaintiffs based on 1965 partition.”, the court added.
The Supreme Court recorded that the plea sought to be taken by the plaintiffs regarding the 1965 partition in the replication filed by them would not come to their rescue for the reason that the amendment application filed to raise that plea was specifically rejected.
“The Trial Court had rightly ignored the plea taken in the replication by the plaintiffs regarding oral partition of 1965, as amendment sought to that effect had already been declined. What was not permitted to be done directly cannot be permitted to be done indirectly.”, the court said.
Resultantly, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, while setting aside the findings of the High Court. The sale deed executed by the appellant (since deceased) in favor of defendant No. 9 regarding Survey No. 106/2 is upheld.
Counsels For Appellant(s) Mr. M. Gireesh Kumar, Adv. Mr. S. K. Kulkarni, Adv. Mr. Ankur S. Kulkarni, AOR Ms. Uditha Chakravarthy, Adv. Ms. Shalaka Srivastava, Adv. Ms. Priya S. Bhalerao, Adv. Mr. Varun Kanwal, Adv.
Counsels For Respondent(s) Mr. Basava Prabhu S Patil, Sr. Adv. Mr. Ankolekar Gurudatta, AOR Mr. Korada Pramod Kumar, Adv. Mr. Amith J, Adv. Mr. V. Chitambresh, Sr. Adv. Mr. Purushottam Sharma Tripathi, AOR Mr. Amit, Adv. Mrs. Vani Vyas, Adv. Mr. E. C. Vidya Sagar, AOR
Case Title: SRINIVAS RAGHAVENDRARAO DESAI (DEAD) BY LRS. VERSUS V. KUMAR VAMANRAO @ ALOK AND ORS., CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 7293-7294 OF 2010
Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 194