Source: Supreme Court

Why in News?

Recently, a division bench of Justices C.T. Ravikumar and Rajesh Bindal has held that the evidence produced before the court cannot surpass the pleadings of the case.

• The Supreme Court gave the observation in the case of Srinivas Raghavendrarao Desai (Dead) by LRs. v. V. Kumar Vamanrao.

What was the Background of Srinivas Raghavendrarao Desai (Dead) by LRs. v. V. Kumar Vamanrao Case?

• Family Tree of Parties:

• Initial Case:
  • The case involved a dispute among family members over property rights.
  • Plaintiffs sued defendant No. 1, along with other defendants including defendant No. 5, defendant No. 2, and sister of defendant No. 1.
  • Defendant No.6 was a proposed purchaser of a part of the land.
  • While Srinivas Raghavendrarao Desai (defendant No.7) was brought into the suit later.
  • The plaintiffs claimed a 5/9^th share in the properties and sought mesne profits.
• Division of Shares by the Courts:
  • The Trial Court granted them a 1/6^th share in certain properties but dismissed claims related to other properties.
  • Both plaintiffs and defendants appealed to the High Court, which revised the shares and property entitlements.
• Sale of Property by Defendant No. 7:
  • The case revolves around the disputed ownership and partition of property, specifically Regular Survey No. 106/2.
    • Defendant No. 7 sold the property to defendant No. 9 in 2001 to protect his interests, despite the sale being deemed invalid by the HC.
  • Defendant No. 7 challenged the sale, while defendant No. 9 did not appeal.
  • The HC allowed defendant No. 7 to argue based on pleadings and evidence, stating the Trial Court could adjust relief as per law in a partition suit.
  • The plaintiffs and defendant No. 1 were granted equal shares of Schedule ‘A’ properties, with specific shares allotted for other properties based on an oral partition that took place in 1965.
• 1965 Partition between Parties:
  • The High Court relied on a 1965 partition, contested by the defendants, particularly defendant No. 1.
  • The Trial Court rejected an amendment regarding the 1965 partition, which was upheld.
  • Defendant No. 7 claimed ownership based on a 1984 partition, supported by a compromise decree.
    • Defendant No. 1's stance shifted, aligning with the plaintiffs, leading to complexity in the case.
  • Defendant No. 1's failure to challenge the 2001 sale suggested the property belonged to defendant No. 7 since the 1984 partition.
• Amendment in Pleadings to Add 1965 Partition:
  • The initial suit, which was filed in 1999, and defendant No.1's written statement did not assert a partition in 1965 either.
  • Plaintiffs later attempted to amend the plaint to include pleadings about the 1965 partition, but the Trial Court rejected the application in 2006, which was not challenged further and thus became final.
  • Later, defendant No. 7 raised a specific plea about the 1984 partition, supported by a decree from a Civil Court in 1995, which recognized the partition of 1984.
  • However, the High Court still found that the properties belonged to defendant no. 1 and hence the sale by defendant no. 7 was bad in law.
• Appeal to Supreme Court:
  • Defendant No. 7 appealed to the Supreme Court but passed away during proceedings.
  • The focus of the appeals to the Supreme Court primarily concerns a sale of specific properties to defendant No.9 by defendant No.7 which was later held bad by the HC.

What were the Observations of Court?

• Judgement:
  • The sale by defendant No. 7 to defendant No. 9 did not violate any of the Trial Court’s orders, as defendant No. 7 was not party to the initial suit until 2001.
    • No extension of the interim order was made regarding the newly impleaded defendant, so no wilful violation occurred.
  • The High Court's judgment heavily relied on the oral partition of 1965, wherein Schedule ‘A’ properties were supposedly allocated solely to defendant No.1.
    • However, it was not even the pleaded case of the plaintiffs that such a partition occurred in 1965.
  • Consequently, appeals were allowed, setting aside High Court findings on sale deed.
    • The sale deed was upheld in favor of defendant No. 9.
• Reasoning:
  • According to legal principle, evidence cannot surpass what is pleaded.
  • In this case, since the plaintiffs' attempt to amend their pleadings regarding the 1965 partition was rejected, evidence related to it cannot be considered by the court.
  • The SC said that there is no quarrel with the proposition of law that no evidence could be led beyond pleadings.

What is the Concept of Pleadings under CPC?

• Definition:
  • Pleadings are formal written statements filed by the parties to a lawsuit, outlining their respective claims, defences, and responses to each other's claims.
  • Rule 1 of Order VI states that, “Pleading” shall mean plaint or written statement.
• Purpose:
  • Pleadings serve as the case's foundation, defining the scope and issues the court will resolve.
• Parties Involved:
  • Plaintiffs: Those who initiate the lawsuit by instituting a plaint.
  • Defendants: Those against whom the plaint is filed, responding to the allegations made by the plaintiffs.
• Content of Pleadings
  • Rule 3 of Order VI states that every pleading shall contain, and only, a concise statement.
  • Statement must relate to material facts which the party pleading relies on for his claim or defence.
  • But it must not contain the evidence by which they are to be proved.
  • Every pleading shall, when necessary, be divided into paragraphs, numbered consecutively.
  • Each allegation being, so far as is convenient, contained in a separate paragraph.
  • Dates, sums and numbers shall be expressed in a pleading in figures and words.
• Major Rules of Order VI:
  • This order deals with pleadings generally. It outlines the rules regarding the form and content of pleadings, including the requirements for particulars, verification, and amendments.