Srinivas Raghavendrarao Desai (D) by LRS. Vs. V. Kumar Vamanrao @ Alok
Background and Facts
This case involved a family dispute over partition and ownership of ancestral properties. The plaintiffs, members of the Desai family, filed a suit seeking partition and possession of various properties, claiming a 5/9th share and mesne profits. The properties included those standing in the names of different family members, and defendant No. 7, Srinivas Raghavendrarao Desai, was impleaded after the suit was filed because he had sold a portion of the disputed property (Survey No. 106/2) to a third party during the pendency of the proceedings.
Proceedings in Lower Courts
The Trial Court partly allowed the plaintiffs’ claim, granting them a 1/6th share in certain properties but dismissing claims over others.
Both sides appealed. The High Court revised the division of shares and property entitlements, partly allowing the plaintiffs' appeal and modifying the trial court’s decree.
Key Legal Issue
A central issue was whether the courts could consider evidence regarding an alleged oral partition in 1965, which the plaintiffs raised in their replication but not in their original pleadings. The plaintiffs' attempt to amend the pleadings to include the 1965 partition was rejected by the trial court, and this rejection was not challenged further.
Supreme Court’s Reasoning
The Supreme Court emphasized the principle that no evidence can be led beyond the pleadings. Since the plaintiffs’ application to amend their pleadings to include the 1965 partition was rejected, any evidence or arguments regarding such a partition could not be considered by the courts.
The Court noted that what cannot be done directly (i.e., amending the plaint to include a new claim) cannot be done indirectly (i.e., raising the issue in replication or by leading evidence).
The bench, comprising Justices Rajesh Bindal and C.T. Ravikumar, held that the High Court erred in relying on unpleaded facts and evidence, and reaffirmed the strict requirement that parties must strictly adhere to their pleadings in civil suits, especially in family partition matters.
Judgment and Outcome
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s findings to the extent they relied on evidence or arguments regarding the 1965 partition, which was not part of the pleadings. The Court reiterated that pleadings form the foundation of a case, and parties cannot be permitted to travel beyond them. The decree was accordingly modified to exclude findings based on unpleaded facts.
Significance
This judgment reinforces the principle that courts must not allow evidence or arguments on matters not specifically pleaded, upholding procedural discipline and fairness in civil litigation. It is particularly significant in partition suits, where clarity and precision in pleadings are essential to avoid prejudice and confusion.
Key Points:
No evidence can be led on facts not pleaded; amendments must be formally allowed to introduce new claims.
The Supreme Court disallowed reliance on the alleged 1965 partition, as it was not in the pleadings.
The judgment underscores strict adherence to procedural rules in civil and family disputes.
RELATED Blog
0 comments